Release List Reviews Shop Join News DVD Giveaways Video Games Advertise
DVD Reviews | Theatrical Reviews | Adult DVD Reviews | Video Game Reviews | Price Search Buy Stuff Here
DVD Talk
DVD Reviews DVD Talk Headlines HD Reviews


Add to My Yahoo! - RSS 2.0 - RSS 2.0 - DVD Talk Podcast RSS -


Go Back   DVD Talk Forum > Entertainment Discussions > Music Talk

Music Talk Discuss music in all its forms: CD, MP3, DVD-A, SACD and of course live

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old 05-26-03, 09:51 PM   #1
Frank TJ Mackey
DVD Talk Gold Edition
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: IL
Posts: 2,678
Metallica's first album since mp3/Lars controversy: who's not buying?

St. Anger is the first studio record from Metallica since Lars
Ulrich caused all the Napster trouble.

Basically, a lot of kids who had bought most or all of Metallica's albums were banned because of downloading some live songs and b-sides....even album cuts.

I know there were a lot of people who got rid of everything Metallica that they owned.

Who is not going to be purchasing their new album?
 
Old 05-26-03, 10:10 PM   #2
Michael T Hudson
DVD Talk Legend
 
Michael T Hudson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Formerly known as "BigDaddy"/Austin, TX
Posts: 10,945
I am not going to buy it but not because of the Napster thing just because I do not want it.
__________________
Michael
 
Old 05-26-03, 10:26 PM   #3
das Monkey
DVD Talk Hero
 
das Monkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 35,881
Just last Tuesday I dropped over $100 on bands I never would have heard without file sharing services. File sharing has never prevented me from buying something I otherwise would have bought; but it's helped support those bands who aren't at the top of the Clear Channel food chain. The RIAA and bands like Metallica have exploited this issue to maintain the virtual monopolistic stranglehold and lack of competition that prevents audiences from knowing that perhaps there is something better out there.

No, I will not be purchasing their new album. If that's an irrational reaction to the situation, then so be it ... but they tried so hard to prevent me from being exposed to the wonderful array of music that's out there that I have no interest in further feeding their greed.

I believe artists should be compensated for their art, but I don't believe that the upper 1/100th of 1% of successful artists should so dominate what's made available to the public that the other artists are unable to succeed.

das
__________________
Dragon*Con 2004 - 2005 - Lost in Hawaii - DVD Reviews

You are not entitled to your own opinion. You are only entitled to your own informed opinion. -- Harlan Ellison quoting Gustave Flaubert
 
Old 05-26-03, 10:44 PM   #4
MJKTool
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 15,108
Quote:
Originally posted by das Monkey
but they tried so hard to prevent me from being exposed to the wonderful array of music that's out there that I have no interest in further feeding their greed.
Yeah that was Metallica's purpose

They were going after people who were downloading direct digital copies of their catalog albums for free. Musicians have every damn right to collect money for their hard work. Could Metallica and the RIAA have gone at it a better way, damn skippy they could have. But that still doesnt dismiss what the MAIN purpose of Napster was...not downloading unknown new musicians, but stopping people from downloading copyrighted material which was the MAIN appeal of Napster and you know it.
Whether you want to believe it or not the music industry is a BUSINESS.
 
Old 05-26-03, 10:46 PM   #5
inVectiVe
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: John "57 Varieties" Kerry represents me in the US Senate.
Posts: 1,367
Bravo, das! That's exactly what I've been saying about Napster all along!

I'll still buy St. Anger anyway - the only possible thing to prevent me from doing so would be if my cousin (huge 'Tallica fan) gets it before me, tell me it sucks, lets me borrow it, thereby causing me to agree that it sucks.

And at the risk of name-dropping a band I "discovered" via Napster, I highly doubt I'll enjoy St. Anger as much as I'm liking Cradle of Filth's Damnation and a Day.
 
Old 05-26-03, 10:51 PM   #6
Michael Corvin
DVD Talk Hero
 
Michael Corvin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Louisville, KY
Posts: 48,893
I was going to d/l based on principle. F Lars. That guy is loaded. They get more royalties on every cd than any other artist out there. I own ALL of their cd's and I have discovered many artists(and bought many albums) from d/l mp3s.

But, marketing wins out. I want a FREE DVD! I guess I will buy.
__________________

Now Playing
Infamous: SS | Almost Finished Zelda: A Link Between Worlds
 
Old 05-26-03, 10:52 PM   #7
Dudikoff
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Denver
Posts: 238
I'll buy it. I'll also probably make a few "back-up" copies and keep them at my friends houses.
__________________
Be excellent to each other.
 
Old 05-26-03, 11:06 PM   #8
fleegs
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Marquette, MI
Posts: 950
Buy it. Can't pass up on the dvd they have with it.
__________________
-View fleegs's DVD Collection
-What I'm Listening To
-My Website - My Weather Website
-Wii Code: 3335 8967 1679 8568
 
Old 05-26-03, 11:11 PM   #9
evenflow
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Southern California
Posts: 4,049
I'm not going to buy it for two reasons:
1. I don't like Metallica
2. The new Radiohead comes out on the same day and I want it to be no.1 on the charts, dammit!
 
Old 05-26-03, 11:22 PM   #10
das Monkey
DVD Talk Hero
 
das Monkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 35,881
Quoth MJKTool
Yeah that was Metallica's purpose

They were going after people who were downloading direct digital copies of their catalog albums for free. Musicians have every damn right to collect money for their hard work. Could Metallica and the RIAA have gone at it a better way, damn skippy they could have. But that still doesnt dismiss what the MAIN purpose of Napster was...not downloading unknown new musicians, but stopping people from downloading copyrighted material which was the MAIN appeal of Napster and you know it.
Whether you want to believe it or not the music industry is a BUSINESS.



Yep ... and that business is dictating the very small amount of music the public gets exposure to and limiting competition to the point where they have complete control over all the money.

Sure, countless people downloaded stuff illegally over Napster. But really ... how many of those people were going to buy it in the first place? If Metallica saw any drop in sales (a dubious claim at best, before the backlash) it was more likely caused by the fact that consumers were spending their fixed amount of musical purchase money on other artists. Many artists came out in support of Napster indicating an increase in exposure and sales that corresponded to the introduction of file sharing.

As I said, I have no problem with artists getting compensated for their art. Metallica's crusade against file sharing, however, was more about control than any artistic morality. If the issue were truly about compensating artists for their work, the RIAA would be embracing the technology and moving forward; but that hasn't been the case, because the issue is power and control. It's about controlling the airwaves with megacorps and controlling the limited amount of music the public is aware of.

I'd fully embrace a system that better attempted to compensate the artists for their work while still maintaining the wide variety that file sharing provides, but that was never a goal of the Metallica-led movement. The goal was to shut it all down, make it all illegal, and re-seize (is that a word) all the power. The genie is out of the bottle. They can try to stuff it back in, but it just serves to piss people off. Had they embraced the technology back when this whole thing began, we'd likely have a good system in place for exposure to unknown acts that allowed for appropriate compensation. But, as already stated, that wasn't really the goal.

The most ironic part of the whole thing is that Napster wasn't really that good an application. It was hardly ever updated, but it was the standard. It probably would have stumbled along for quite a while as an ineffective but popular product had Metallica not tried to hard to shut it down. By killing it and sending the masses back into the free agent market, it freed up a system for developers to write a much more effective product and lure away those who up until that point were completely content with Napster.

Compensation for artists is a valid issue of concern. Metallica's role in all of this, however -- which is the point of the thread -- was never so noble, and as such, I'd rather not give them my money.

das
__________________
Dragon*Con 2004 - 2005 - Lost in Hawaii - DVD Reviews

You are not entitled to your own opinion. You are only entitled to your own informed opinion. -- Harlan Ellison quoting Gustave Flaubert

Last edited by das Monkey; 05-26-03 at 11:27 PM.
 
Old 05-26-03, 11:37 PM   #11
db27
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Back in the 802, missing NYC
Posts: 5,281
I'm buying it, duh.

People need to move on from this napster thing, it's old news.

By the way, it's been noted that Lars and Metallica were used as tools against this movement. They led the crusade on something that they did not understand. Lars admits today not really knowing about the real uses and details of the filesharing purpose. Only what the RIAA told him was going on. They have moved on, realizing it was a battle that could not be won, and are over it. They now understand and know more about it. And ask anyone in the Metallica camp, they kinda wish it had never happened cuz it wasn't worth the result.

This is an often discussed topic in the Metallica videos available through the club sites.
__________________
They say the devil
lives in my soul
I promise not to let him
take control
 
Old 05-26-03, 11:48 PM   #12
MJKTool
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 15,108
Quote:
Originally posted by das Monkey
Many artists came out in support of Napster indicating an increase in exposure and sales that corresponded to the introduction of file sharing.
And many artists came out in support against Napster besides Metallica. Dr Dre anyone? I guess people forget Metallica were definetly not the only ones. Look I am the last person who wants to defend the RIAA. But I do defend an artist right to their royalties for music they created. It really is a shame that the music industry shot themselves in the foot regarding Peer to Peer. But it does look like they are finally starting to adapt to Technology with Apple's new service. File sharing did not die with Napster so I do not understand people who act like it did? Again I am definetly not "Pro RIAA", but I am for artists getting their due money and am not for the countless people who have massive hard drives worth of downloaded copyrighted MP3's for free who cover that with an excuse of "they have been overcharging me for years". No one forced you to go and buy an overpriced CD. When you download a copy of a song without the proper authorization, its stealing imo.
 
Old 05-26-03, 11:49 PM   #13
Rogue588
DVD Talk Reviewer
 
Rogue588's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: WAS looking for My Own Private Stuckeyville, but stuck in Liberty City (while missing Vice City)
Posts: 15,094
Oh goody...yet another artist fighting a cause they don't "understand"...

Sorry but that "explanation" doesn't wash with me.

You're not going to tell me the entire band was bamboozled the whole time by the RIAA??

I said it before, i'll say it again..

The only people downloading songs/albums are those who can't wait for the street date, or those who were never gonna buy it in the first place..

As for the Frank TJ Mackey's question..i'm not. I plan on downloading it.
__________________
Marshall Mann: "What exactly is your beef with humanity?"
Mary Shannon: "I have no beef with humanity. It's the people I can't stand."
"I'm not a fan of facts. Facts can change all the time, but my opinion will never change." - Stephen Colbert

| owned | desired | ditchin' | listen Wednesday 10p |
 
Old 05-27-03, 07:53 AM   #14
Michael Corvin
DVD Talk Hero
 
Michael Corvin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Louisville, KY
Posts: 48,893
I remember reading that Jason Newstead was a Napster fan. Just another thing in the big snowball of him leaving the band.
__________________

Now Playing
Infamous: SS | Almost Finished Zelda: A Link Between Worlds
 
Old 05-27-03, 08:39 AM   #15
db27
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Back in the 802, missing NYC
Posts: 5,281
Quote:
Originally posted by Rogue588
Oh goody...yet another artist fighting a cause they don't "understand"...

Sorry but that "explanation" doesn't wash with me.

You're not going to tell me the entire band was bamboozled the whole time by the RIAA??

No I'm not, cuz the entire band didn't give a crap, it was Lars' battle, the other guys weren't involved.
__________________
They say the devil
lives in my soul
I promise not to let him
take control
 
Old 05-27-03, 08:44 AM   #16
db27
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Back in the 802, missing NYC
Posts: 5,281
This is just one of those things that some people are never gonna get. I guess that is the bottom line. People are pissed cuz they can't get free music anymore, understandable I suppose.

Not my problem, and this is a battle I cannot win.
__________________
They say the devil
lives in my soul
I promise not to let him
take control
 
Old 05-27-03, 08:50 AM   #17
GuessWho
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,452
I'm buying the CD for the music on the CD.

The personal business opinions of the band members have nothing to do with it.
 
Old 05-27-03, 08:53 AM   #18
Trigger
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Arizona, USA
Posts: 23,459
I'm not gonna buy it, but out of spite I'm gonna download it and burn copies of it and leave them at newsstands near record stores... plus, I'm going to leave soulseek on all the time so others can download it too. F Lars.
__________________
theomnom.com
Before you speak, ask yourself, is it kind, is it necessary, is it true, does it improve on the silence? Sai Baba
 
Old 05-27-03, 09:23 AM   #19
cdollaz
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Sugar Land, TX
Posts: 13,441
Quote:
Originally posted by Rogue588


The only people downloading songs/albums are those who can't wait for the street date, or those who were never gonna buy it in the first place..

NOt true at all. I personally know of 2 people who downloaded tons of stuff they would have bought at the stores if they had to.
 
Old 05-27-03, 09:28 AM   #20
das Monkey
DVD Talk Hero
 
das Monkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 35,881
Quoth MJKTool
But I do defend an artist right to their royalties for music they created.


I've stated twice already that I agree with this. You need new material.

Quoth MJKTool
File sharing did not die with Napster so I do not understand people who act like it did?


Who's acting like it did? I already noted the irony of how this crusade likely increased file sharing. Again, you need new material. I agree with you on these points.

Quoth MJKTool
Again I am definetly not "Pro RIAA", but I am for artists getting their due money and am not for the countless people who have massive hard drives worth of downloaded copyrighted MP3's for free who cover that with an excuse of "they have been overcharging me for years". No one forced you to go and buy an overpriced CD. When you download a copy of a song without the proper authorization, its stealing imo.


As already noted, the questions of whether it's stealing and whether the artists are being compensated for their art are two separate and unique issues. If someone "steals" something they were never going to purchase in the first place, an argument exists that they have acquired something they do not deserve, which is both a moral and legal question. This does not, however, directly translate to loss of compensation for the artists who created said art. Blurring the lines between the two is a classic fallacy. One does not beget the other. An artist only loses money if the person downloading were going to purchase the art in the first place. While there are clearly people who are downloading instead of buying, this is most certainly a minority.

Let's say I have 100 gigs of mp3s, a conservative estimate, most of which are single songs off of albums from the last 60 years. Assuming an average of 5 megs per mp3, that's 20,000 mp3s. Multiply that by $18 per CD ... the artists have lost $360,000!!!!!! Just from me alone!!!! This is the case that was presented against file sharing. This is also clearly a load of crap.

As with most things in life, the issue is more complicated than the simple "if you download, you're stealing from the artist" argument. Electronic duplication of something you were never going to purchase in the first place is ethical theft, not monetary theft. While the monetary theft does exist, it's very likely counterbalanced by the increased exposure of all artists. The upper 1/100th of 1% doesn't see this benefit of this, because they've already saturated the marketplace, but it's very helpful to just about everyone else. If one truly believes in compensating the artists for their art, I would expect them to hope all artists get compensated not just the ones at the top of the label food chain. While I have no proof of this, it is my belief that most consumers would spend the same amount of money annually on music whether file sharing were there or not. With it, they get a hell of a lot more music, but they're not really spending any more or less. And for each person who spends less money, there's likely a guy like me who can attribute an increase in spending to file sharing.

These questions are difficult to answer, but they are valid concerns that deserve to be considered. Each "side" has a point in this, but my issue with Metallica stems from their (Lars') negative and antagonistic approach from day one. Whether they were truly pawns in all this or are simply saying so to try and win back some fans, I'm just not that interested any more. It's not a hate thing ... I'm just not going to buy their albums, but I don't have a problem with anyone who does.

My issue with this is less about file sharing and acquiring mp3s and more about the way megacorps have strangled the music industry. It takes an act of God to hear anything new on the radio. While it's easy to hop aboard the morality train, I believe this issue goes deeper than simply "downloading is illegal."

In any case, it's good to see that some aspects of this have started to change, and more corporate sticky-beaks are embracing the future instead of fighting it ( <--- insert X-Files joke here). Of course, the systematic flooding of file-sharing with deletion viruses and corrupted audio isn't a few kids in a basement, so we have a long way to go ...

das

Edit: wow, that's a long post ... sorry about that ... I assure you, it didn't take long to type.
__________________
Dragon*Con 2004 - 2005 - Lost in Hawaii - DVD Reviews

You are not entitled to your own opinion. You are only entitled to your own informed opinion. -- Harlan Ellison quoting Gustave Flaubert
 
Old 05-27-03, 09:39 AM   #21
Groucho
Moderator
 
Groucho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
Posts: 66,787
I'm not going to buy it. Everything should be free! FREE! Gimme gimme gimme!
__________________
Xbox Live: Runner Groucho
PSN: RunnerGroucho

"The Borg is a species" -- Tracer Bullet (Citation)
 
Old 05-27-03, 11:08 AM   #22
briank
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Albany, NY
Posts: 4,097
I'm not buying it.

I understand both the "for" and "Against" argument for file sharing.

But add me to the camp, that has found bands through file sharing that I never would have otherwise.
I would have NEVER heard most of these on the radio.
Then when they toured I would have NEVER known to go see them or take a chance or spending money on a ticket of somebody I never heard of.
But through filesharing, I have found bands I like, bought some of their cds, then when they went on tour I spent $15-$75 on their concert tickets.
Which increased their revenue that never would have been otherwise.

Yes, in return, I've also downloaded PLENTY of material that I didn't end up buying (whether I didn't like it, or was mediocre, or I actually liked it but not enough for the entire cd).
SO I possessed material that I have no right to. But this is music I never would have taken a chance on anyway.
So no $$$ loss to the artist. Heck, even if I didn't like it, I may have recommended it to someone I thought might like it. So again MORE $$$ for the artists.

The only time it's less for an artist, is sometimes I'll preview a band's new cd that I normally would have bought, a band that I've always liked and followed. But I was so disappointed in the new material I didn't bother buying it where I probably would have bought it if I had not heard it already.
But this is minimal.

Yes, I have tons of material I didn't buy, but most of the time this actually increases the band's revenue from me (either recommending it to others, buying concert tickets, etc).
And the more people that get the music, it gets the band's name out there. The tour is bigger, they get more radio airplay, etc.

I'm also sure there are MANY MANY people that download 100% now and buy NOTHING on music. I'm sure it's happening.
But at the same time I don't see overall sales numbers slumping.
Maybe those $$$ are being spent elsewhere on the band.
Look at concert ticket prices, they have gone up enough.
Think of it that way:
Cd was: $15
concert ticket was: $30

cd now: FREE (d/l)
concert ticket now: $50

I know it's not that easy.

It is a very interesting debate. I guess maybe the artist should have the right to decide whether they want the "file sharing" promotion venue. Metallica obviously didn't. Other bands do, that is how they became succesful.
__________________
MY DVD TRACKER LIST
 
Old 05-27-03, 11:20 AM   #23
F For Fake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Louisville, KY - Home of Ali and HST!
Posts: 837
The irony for me is that while I support Lars idea (I think file-sharing is stealing...not that it would really affect Metallica, but I'm thinking more about artists like Aimee Mann, Neko Case, They Might Be Giants, Public Enemy, etc Who really NEED all of those album sales) I won't be buying the album because...I don't like Metallica.
 
Old 05-27-03, 12:29 PM   #24
Turd Ferguson
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Memphis, TN
Posts: 5,567
I have a feeling many of you pro-Napster people would never think of regularly walking out of a store with goods you didn't pay for. Maybe the fact that you are commiting theft seems easier to rationalize because the product you are stealing is just a string of 1's and 0's on your hard drive instead of a physical object. I've got lots of songs I downloaded off Kazaa, but I'm at least honest enough to say it's a fundamentally dishonest act I've chosen to do rather than some grand act of rebellion against some abstract "system". There are far more legitimate ways to make a real change in society than bootlegging some nu-metal cd.
__________________
Live every week like it's shark week.
-Tracy Jordan, 30 Rock
 
Old 05-27-03, 12:44 PM   #25
Trigger
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Arizona, USA
Posts: 23,459
I can't imagine paying 30 - 50 bucks for a concert ticket... guess you listen to more expensive bands. Anyway - you bring up an excellent point. The way alot of contracts are written, many artists don't typically make their money off of album sales but rather off of touring.
__________________
theomnom.com
Before you speak, ask yourself, is it kind, is it necessary, is it true, does it improve on the silence? Sai Baba
 
Sponsored Links
Closed Thread

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:17 PM.

Rules - DVD Talk - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0
Copyright 2011 DVDTalk.com All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.