Metallica seems to be regretting a little thing I like to call The Time They Destroyed Napster.
Back in 2000, the heavy-metal band sued the shiz out of the awesomeness that was once free music, claiming Napster was encouraging piracy and copyright infringement by allowing people to trade songs over their servers.
Of course, after years of irrelevance and crappy album sales, they’re thinking of following Radiohead’s lead and allowing people to download their next release for free.
Drummer Lars Ulrich says:
“We’re looking at how we can embrace everything. We want to be as free players as possible. We’ve been observing Radiohead and Trent Reznor [of Nine Inch Nails] and in 27 years or however long it takes for the next record, we’ll be looking forward to everything in terms of possibilities with the internet.”
Why? Because through the lens of experience they realized what a profoundly short-sighted move it was to punish people for downloading music online? iTunes, anyone?
Or maybe it’s because they were upset at being ranked No. 17 on Blender’s Biggest Wusses in Rock list last year due to “the anti-Napster crusade.” It’s bad for business if you’re supposed to be all rebellious and rules-eschewing but in reality you’re just whiny and lame.
I’ve always defended Metallica over the whole Napster thing and I won’t stop now. Imagine being a professional musician and not a computer nerd and then one day your manager just walks in and says “oh, by the way, people downloaded 15 million of your songs yesterday and you’re not making a thing from it.” How in the world would *you* react to it?
I’ve always heard the artists make almost all of their money from touring not album sales. Which is actually good for Metallica. Who buys their albums anymore?
The only people making money from the actual album sales are the record companies. Now excuse me, I have to buy the 20th reissue of Elvis Costello’s first album.
I usually agree with your posts, but…. this is one issue that always needs clarification. Metallica’s lawyers went after Napster for various reasons, but loss of money wasn’t the primary motivation. Metallica has (or maybe had) a phenominally beneficial contract because Q-Prime drove a hard bargain when they were in their sales prime. They make more than twice the money per cd sale than many bands get…. which is still a small fraction of the total price a consumer spends on a cd. The main reason for the suit was ‘theft’ of intellectual property. Metallica essentually flipped their shit when the track they did for M:I 3 turned up on Napster in a fairly rough form. They had known their previous releases and numerous bootlegs were being downloaded. It was this release of their unfinished work without their consent that really rankled them.
Overall, the more you know about Metallica, the less hypocritical this idea seems. They offer a large number of live shows for free in a “vault” site open to people who have purchased some of their previous releases. They also have been known to allow and even encourage fans to record their live shows. They seem to remember better than many bands what it’s like to be a fan.
I’m not the fan I used to be, but I will still defend my former favorite band.
Where did they say they regretted going after Napster? Holly Won’t sounds like one of the many people who voice an opinion on this type of with no foreseeable means of ever having people pay for something they create.
Hmmm, I’m on the fence about this. But sometimes irony is funny.
I look at it this way, thank God we live in a country that allows us to protect our copywrites, music, etc. In the USA we have the right to go after someone if “we” feel they have done us wrong, then it is up to a judge and jury to decied if we were right for sueing them. This is done after ALL the FACTS are presented. I have NO problem with what they did.
I recall The Dixie Chicks being hated by a lot of people, for remarks that one member made in another country. (I didn’t like their remark.) Those same people are now saying, “Gee, maybe they are right about Bush?” I wasn’t one of them, but I feel that we all have the right to do or say what we feel. A little protocol would help, when not on our soil.
As soon as Lars and the other forgotten boyz make their next lawsuit against the real devil TicketMASTER…I just might notice them as rebel rockers again. Until then, they should just appreciate Napster for saving them from a sequel to their Behind The Music dramedy.
I think the funniest thing about that article from ‘00 was the fact that there were people out there who thought other artists (I believe Aretha Franklin and Ray Charles were cited) would start suing…but it didn’t happen. I make fun of Metallica for suing because it really hurt their reputation. It doesn’t matter if they were justified or not; they ruined themselves by suing the fans as if they are hardened criminals when, instead, they were fans who wanted their music as quickly as possible. Most bands do make their money from tours and other venues, so the reason why the RIAA has been suing people (and losing for the most part) is because it hurts the record companies’ profits.
I don’t care what Metallica does for their fans; they lost a lot of them in the lawsuit. Period.
Do you know what other artists did when their rough tracks were leaked online? They got their sh*t together and released their albums as soon as possible. I know this happened to Fiona Apple and others who realized that it was better to try to get out a better version into the marketplace instead of suing people because someone stole something and everyone else was getting a copy. Go after the person who stole it instead of saying everyone who listens to it is a thief.
And by the time Metallica finally puts out a new album, there will probably be another music evolution where the Radiohead business model will be out of date and replaced with something else. Way to keep up with the times, guys.
These guys are the poster children for corporate music. Lars and the boys threatened universities with lawsuits if they didn’t block Napster. Forget the fact that Napster wasn’t violating any laws. Now, Metallica wants us to believe that they want to share their music. Please!! Metallica’s bull sh*t started when the stole Dave Mustane’s songs, kicked him out of the band, and then signed a contract for their first album. Wuss isn’t strong enough to describe these losers.
I’m in total agreement with Zorg on this. Pay back is a bitch boys and I hope you get a double helping when it comes to being considered lame whiney babies. Dave Mustane got tired of listening to them and made the right decision to start his own band. When I finally see them on VH1 making Metallica of love the circle will be complete.
Whenever a band does this, it isn’t really their decision, since they make next to nothing off of album sales, it’s just the record label that wants their cut. They just use Metallica’s website and their press releases to announce stuff like this. And I love Metallica. I would buy their albums if I couldn’t get them for free.