Warning: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in ..../includes/class_bootstrap.php(430) : eval()'d code on line 322
Metallica do have a point.

80s Forum: Metallica do have a point.
Results 1 to 6 of 6
  1. #1
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    80

    Post Metallica do have a point.

    Everyone here seems to be crying about Metallica sueing napster, but why do you do this? After all, u can still download their songs from napster and they dont chuck you off.
    Also, they do have a point. After reading the latest kerrang, with a interview with lars you could see they had a point. I mean napster were putting out Metallicas new song before it was released which may have given a bad impression of it.
    im not saying i like that they are sueing napster, just that they have a point and you should all take note of it.

    cya all later.

    ------------------

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Location
    .
    Age
    50
    Posts
    2,359

    Post

    I admit that I don't know very much about the lawsuit other than the headlines and what i've heard here. But, I remember Van Halen suing 2 Live Crew for using one of Van Halen's more popular songs as background for the Crew's most popular song. Van Halen won that case. And now Bon Jovi is being sued by Oasis because one BJ's new songs sound like one of Oasis' songs. This kind of thing happens all the time.

    ------------------

  3. #3
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    YOU aren't in on the joke!
    Age
    50
    Posts
    17,359

    Lightbulb

    First, NAPSTER never put a song on thier own site. FANS download what they want, and then other people SHARE IT. SOMEBODY from the record company, or the band themselves had to GIVE somebody a copy of the songs to be placed. Bottom line is this, Lars Ullrich is a money hungry bitch, who has more cash now than he could ever spend. He only wants more cash, so he sues so that the 100,000 people who MAY have downloaded thier songs will have to BUY the CD. Now let me get this straight, if you caused me to not be able to use a website that I enjoy going to to listen to music, what makes you think I am going to go out and spend 17 bucks on your CD? On the other hand, if I hear a song I like, and want to listen to it in my car, my house, at work, while jogging, etc, and you dont mind my having a preview of your music, I am more apt to buy your CD. It is all Public Relations, and it is obvious that Metallica have enough cash, and stupid NEW fans that they can piss off tons of people and get away with it. How many unsigned bands would LOVE to have 100,000 people actually hear thier songs? TONS!

    Ron

    ------------------
    My morals are beyond reproach and I will brutally murder anybody who says different.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    80

    Post

    Hey jasper,im noy saying they were right to do this, only that they have a point. I use napster all the time and download Metallica songs from it still.
    I was only saying that they have a point because someone put up a unfinished version of their song on napster, which would piss them off.
    I do agree that loads of bands would love to have their songs heard, but if things carry on like they are, how are bands going to make money when people can get their songs for free. This even more the case with new MP3 players becoming cheaper and better.

    Cya later.

    ------------------

  5. #5
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    YOU aren't in on the joke!
    Age
    50
    Posts
    17,359

    Exclamation

    Record sales make up probably the LEAST of an "artists" payday. Royalties from the song being played on radio, mtv, hv1, much music, etc. are far more than actual monies paid for the record that is bought.

    Why do you think bands go on tour? that is where they make money. Plus, by being out, they raise awareness of the cd and thus, can generate MORE cash from people hearing a song, liking it, and then going out to buy the song. SOrta like NAPSTER does. I also think that if Lars didnt cry like a big pussy, most of the people would side WITH him. But he comes across as a starving artist that is really being hurt financially by this.

    ------------------
    My morals are beyond reproach and I will brutally murder anybody who says different.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Location
    .
    Age
    50
    Posts
    2,359

    Post

    Forgive my ignorance here, I'm not as computer savvy as many of you seem to be. But, didn't somebody have to buy a copy of the song before downloading it onto napster. Or is that not how it works?
    Don't artists normally give free, new copies of their songs to radio stations, even internet radio, so they can be heard? That's how most bands get the word out that they have new music out. And, isn't mp3's just a hybrid or extension of radio? I mean for years people have made copies from the radio, so that is not a viable argument, especially when the recording quality usually isn't that good anyways.
    So, if I am understanding this correctly, Mettallica are suing napster for putting out a new song before it was actually released. How did napster get this song? Somebody downloaded it from somewhere. The real question seems to be who and from where.

    ------------------

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
[Output: 64.35 Kb. compressed to 54.95 Kb. by saving 9.40 Kb. (14.61%)]