How noble of you to apply your own selective morality in the same breath as condemning others for that very thing.

The question of whether it's dishonest is a separate one from whether the artists are losing out. Merging the two in oversimplified sweeping statements of black vs. white (as is the main grievance many have against the Lars-led movement) is inaccurate. Ethical theft and physical theft are overlapping but different entities, and it's one of the many things our society is forced to deal with in our technologically advanced culture. We cannot simply state that the rules of one should necessarily apply precisely to the other.

Downloading music illegally is not a grand act of rebellion, and no one suggested that it is; however, this does not change the fact that new paradigms need to be established, and suggesting that all cases of electronic theft directly result in monetary theft is an unacceptable and illogical conclusion.

The issue isn't as black and white and some want us to believe.

das

<BLOCKQUOTE> • Quoth Trigger •<HR SIZE=1>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. <HR SIZE=1></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not an insider, and I'm sure every situation is different, but I've always been led to believe that touring was the primary source of revenue for an artist whereas album sales was the primary source of revenue for the label. The two go hand-in-hand, and there's certainly a lot of overlap, but that's the impression I've always had.

das

Looks like someone else needs new material -wink-

This is the argument that "pro napster" people like to fall on. The argument of "well I wasnt going to buy it anyway, but I can still posess it". Come on gimme a break. You're telling me you have some kind of right to own copyrighted material just because you say you were never going to buy it? But your still enjoying enjoying that free piece of music that you did not buy! What entitles you to that? Shouldnt the appropriate people still be compensated for that music "You werent going to buy originally", but are still possessing.

Nobility wasn't my goal. I'm simply saying that if someone chooses to do something that's wrong, they should admit it and accept the consequences. I speed occasionally, and every few years when I get a ticket, I pay it. I don't bitch about how the limit should be higher or how the speed limit is part of some great governmental conspiracy to control me. I made the choice to speed knowing it was wrong and willing to deal with the consequences. I choose to use Kazaa sometimes, but if it gets shut down, I won't complain. I would have no right to. By your logic, if I've ever told a lie or still tell the occasional lie, I should never tell my child not to lie.

By the way, who are some of the artists who have used file sharing services to spring to stardom in the last few years in spite of the tyrannical recording establishment?

Well - and here's an enormous "if" - if everybody who used Napster used it the way I did, I could come up with plenty of bands that would have noticed a spike in their album sales.

Not all of our file-sharing efforts amount to "bootlegging some nu-metal CD." Quite the opposite for me, in fact. I think the "nu-metal" I hear all over the radio is atrocious, so I employed Napster to test out bands that *aren't* trying to sound like Korn. And if I liked those bands, I'd buy their records. Honestly.

The problem is, most people aren't honestly doing it. I know of 2 myself who got tons of free stuff. So even if 1 out of 10 is honest, that's alot of people getting free stuff. My stance on Napster was that as long as it wasn't stuff that was released in stores, it was fair game, and I don't think many bands would have a problem with that. The problem was people ripping entire new studio albums. If Napster truly was a place where people honestly check out new stuff with the intention to buy, then why not limit the stuff on Napster to live or unreleased material, where people could check out that stuff and then go buy the album.

I know tons of people as well. Some of them have upwards of 15,000 songs.

File sharing IS an excellent way to discover new music. Because you sure as hell arent going to listening to the radio or MTV. But Im willing to bet my life the majority of people who used Napster werent doing so because they wanted to discover new music.

<BLOCKQUOTE> • Quoth MJKTool •<HR SIZE=1>You're telling me you have some kind of right to own copyrighted material just because you say you were never going to buy it? But your still enjoying enjoying that free piece of music that you did not buy! What entitles you to that? Shouldnt the appropriate people still be compensated for that music "You werent going to buy originally", but are still possessing. <HR SIZE=1></BLOCKQUOTE>

You're still not listening. ;) This isn't what I said at all. It appears you're reacting to another prior argument with someone else, as this is not the argument I've made. I'm not making any claims as to the morality of the person who acquires something he didn't pay for. I'm saying that question is a <B>different</B> question from whether the artists are losing money. These are two separate issues being incorrectly grouped together as the same. In all seriousness, try to pull back from the knee-jerk reaction to argue against me long enough to see that we're not arguing the same point. I agree with the things you've said about the ethical nature of acquiring something you haven't paid for ... I do not agree that this directly results in a loss of revenue for musical artists. I believe these are two separate issues that form a complicated sytem that demands more than the simple black and white analysis it has been given.

das

<BLOCKQUOTE> • Quoth cdollaz •<HR SIZE=1>The problem is, most people aren't honestly doing it. I know of 2 myself who got tons of free stuff. So even if 1 out of 10 is honest, that's alot of people getting free stuff.<HR SIZE=1></BLOCKQUOTE>

The point that's getting lost here is the unknown factor of how much of that "free" stuff was going to be purchased <I>before</I> file-sharing and how did that money get allocated <I>after</I> file-sharing? Our expenditures are not so fluid as to have any significant correlation to what we download. As previously mentioned, I could spent the next week downloading 100 gigs of mp3s, each from a different album. This does not mean that the artists have lost $360,000 of sales from me in that week.

While we may find the concept of file-sharing of copyrighted material to be morally objectionable, it is a separate (albeit related) issue from whether or not the artists are losing/gaining revenue from the process, which was the argument made by the Metallica-led movement and the subject of this thread.

das

As a side note, I don't think these two threads should be merged. Metallica fans should have a place to rejoice and discuss the upcoming release of the album without the burdon of this discussion about the merits of the movement they led against Napster and subsequently how we feel about them today. I'd like to continue discussing this, but I don't want to crap all over those who are simply looking forward to the album and really don't care about this other stuff.

das

Thanks for clarifying. Its impossible to argue "if's", you just cant do it. I do actually agree with you that the RIAA claims are really idiodic and silly. I get your point, and apparently you get mine. Its a shame the music industry acts the way the do even though they are *morally* correct. -wink-

Yes! :up: Please make these separate benedict.

I concur, I'd be more than happy to start new thread that specifically deals with reactions to the new album and news relating to Metallica that I've been posting all along (with some fine help from gerrythdon.

I'd rather not wade through the napster debate to find out what people think of the new album, videos, songs, and other news.

thanks das, I appreciate it. i agree that these threads don't vibe together.

it's tough being a metallifan sometimes ;) i see both sides of the arguement, and simply do not know enough about the damn RIAA and the details of the services to bother anymore. bottom line, i love metallica and want to [ironic word usage]share [/ironic word usage]that love with other folks who feel the same or have interest in the music or the band in general.

:thumbsup:

[thanks DB27:)]... I just noticed that the other chat was LOCKED... Please unlock it BENEDICT [stop me from goin on a CURSING BINGE:lol:]... I'm READY to go [DB27:)]

Great ... I see the two of you have successfully quoted my misspelling of the word "burden" so I can't go back and fix it. :D

das

Wow, you know everyone on Earth!? You must get around. I know myself personally in college downloaded hundreds of albums, 30-40 of which I would have bought, and I now have. I realized that I might as well have been walking into the store and stealing them. I'm all for file sharing to discover new bands, but don't justify downloading albums instead of buying them by assuming everyone who does it on the planet is a saint who is just doing it out of a feigned interest and would never buy it anyway. Thats bull.

That's true, except Metallica is a big exception in all this. They have an unbelievable contract, where many artists get maybe $1 a CD, they get somewhere between $4-$5.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Wallet Boy
Wow, you know everyone on Earth!? You must get around. I know myself personally in college downloaded hundreds of albums, 30-40 of which I would have bought, and I now have. I realized that I might as well have been walking into the store and stealing them. I'm all for file sharing to discover new bands, but don't justify downloading albums instead of buying them by assuming everyone who does it on the planet is a saint who is just doing it out of a feigned interest and would never buy it anyway. Thats bull.

---

Yep. I wander the planet like David Carradine in Kung Fu. And I STILL find time to post here. [guess that makes me a fabulous multi-tasker]

Never said anyone was a saint. And i'm not justifying anything for anyone. That's for your own moral compass to decide.

More to come...[as soon as I get to the next state..]

Personnally I download though not nearly as much now as I used to since I don't have the time. But around the same time I stopped downloading or severely decreased the amount, my buying slowed now also. Staind's new album was the first album I bought in the past 3 months or so versus the 2-3 a week I used to average.

I am not a huge fan of Metallica but after hearing their single on the radio today I got a good laugh and will definitely not buy it based on that song.

I just saw the video. Wow, that was awful. Ill probably still buy the cd, but I think that was their worst song ever.

I only download tracks here and there to try and figure out if a certain new artists' album is worth my hard earned dollar. If I don't like it, I delete it anyway, so I don't see any harm in my doing this.

and to post what I was gonna post in the last thread (regarding the single).....

I listened to it 4 times today on the Radio. I'm still on the fence. Of course I will buy it, but I just can't get over the lyrics. I feel they are just plain bad. Unimaginative and emotionless. Too repetitive too, but the music flat out kicks ass. I think it's a lil too long without any type of guitar solo though. It could have accomplished what it did 4 minutes.

My ears are still open though.

I was gonna buy it until I heard the first single, "St. Anger." It may be one of the worst songs ever recorded, and I like the newer Metallica albums. I was really disappointed. Take a listen, it's almost unlistenable (is that a word?).

Actually, I've found just the opposite. I know of more sites to download music from. And most of the music is incoded at a much higher quality than that “128” crap that was floating around Napster back in the day.

When Napster got shut down, it just made it harder for the ‘average joe’ to download songs.

No big deal. There'll always be a whole underground society of websites, servers, and programs where free music’s available.

I'll be downloading this album a week or so before it comes out. I'll probably be able to download the DVD too.

Lars and company really shot themselves in the foot when they started bitching about Napster. If they were smart, they would have tried to work with file sharing companies, and taken a piece of the pie.

Instead, all they did was drive online file sharing farther underground. Free music is here to stay, if it’s not Napster it’ll be some new file sharing server/program.

Now you must excuse me, as I need to go finish downloading my SVCD copy of the Matrix Reloaded.

I'm in the same boat.

I was seriously ready to get the album, and then I saw the video on MTV tonight.

A really -eh- track. It did nothing for me. James' vocals sounded terrible.

I'm thinking the need to ****ing lose Bob Rock in a big way.