May 2, 2000
4:08 PM Subscribe
In relation to yesterday's Metallica post on post, you can chat with them now (5 PM Pacific). The catch, however, is that you need to be registered with Yahoo.
registered with napster? what, so they can attach your name to your IP and snatch you in the night? So they can identify more napster users in their suits against people?
I never thought Metallica would send out the jack booted thugs after fans or non-fans
posted by mathowie at 4:12 PM on May 2, 2000
I never thought Metallica would send out the jack booted thugs after fans or non-fans
posted by mathowie at 4:12 PM on May 2, 2000
I'm on the chat lines right now (as fiscap). Just posted a question about whether they ever discussed actually distributing music via MP3 to make money as they would obviously get more doing it direct than through MP3. We'll see if it even gets answered. ;)
posted by vitaflo at 4:51 PM on May 2, 2000
posted by vitaflo at 4:51 PM on May 2, 2000
"than through MP3" actually should read "than through CD".
posted by vitaflo at 4:52 PM on May 2, 2000
posted by vitaflo at 4:52 PM on May 2, 2000
I'm watching the chat right now and one of the Metallica guys (absurdly named Lars, which is one of the funniest names I've ever heard) just said "It [MP3s] will get out of hand and musicians will stop making music."
Does anyone find that a completely stupid statement? They really are just creating "product" aren't they?
posted by jbeaumont at 5:13 PM on May 2, 2000
Does anyone find that a completely stupid statement? They really are just creating "product" aren't they?
posted by jbeaumont at 5:13 PM on May 2, 2000
I was sitting on the chat for a bit myself and it looks like Metallica decided to cut out early, without answering a decent amount of questions. As if they didn't look bad enough already..
posted by valerie at 5:57 PM on May 2, 2000
posted by valerie at 5:57 PM on May 2, 2000
A friend of mine met Metallica in Germany, a few years back. He described them as "not exactly the sharpest crayons in the box".
They just don't get that MP3's, just like the internet, put the "virtual unknown" on a level playing field with the big boys.... it's the centuries new "indie label"... that's what scares them.
It's a shame. I miss them in their "Ride the Lightning" days.
posted by EricBrooksDotCom at 6:36 PM on May 2, 2000
They just don't get that MP3's, just like the internet, put the "virtual unknown" on a level playing field with the big boys.... it's the centuries new "indie label"... that's what scares them.
It's a shame. I miss them in their "Ride the Lightning" days.
posted by EricBrooksDotCom at 6:36 PM on May 2, 2000
...and with this silly list of names;
Isn't there a privacy issue involved here? I don't remember reading in Napster's docs that there is a list of who dled what when.
Or better yet, they (metallica) said that everyone on the list of people broke the law - but what if the person who dled a song owned the cd in the first place? How does that work?
posted by jamescblack at 7:32 AM on May 3, 2000
Isn't there a privacy issue involved here? I don't remember reading in Napster's docs that there is a list of who dled what when.
Or better yet, they (metallica) said that everyone on the list of people broke the law - but what if the person who dled a song owned the cd in the first place? How does that work?
posted by jamescblack at 7:32 AM on May 3, 2000
>what if the person who dled a song owned the cd in
>the first place? How does that work?
If their name came up on Napster as having a Metasslicka (oops) file, this would mean that they were 'sharing' it.
posted by EngineBeak at 8:31 AM on May 3, 2000
>the first place? How does that work?
If their name came up on Napster as having a Metasslicka (oops) file, this would mean that they were 'sharing' it.
posted by EngineBeak at 8:31 AM on May 3, 2000
This reminds me of a truism I first heard from my dad:
"The older you become, the more you agree with the Republicans."
When a band starts out small, it's in their best interest to get heard any way they can. Once they're multimillionaires, it's in their best interest to restrict access to everything and charge through the nose for it.
It's like the actress who does a nude scene in some schlocky piece of crap when she's 22 and then disavows it once she's 32 and an international star.
I don't see this changing anytime soon. Even bands that get discovered through MP3 will eventually sign to a major label. Why? Because that's where the money is. Plus, it's a controlled, efficient, organized method of distribution, as compared to the relative mess of the Internet.
As I continue to think about Napster, I find my position evolving. At first, it was a very black-white "don't steal music" argument. Then I started thinking about what all this means for music in general, as a medium.
I don't think there's anything wrong with MP3 or trying to get your voice out there, but there is something wrong with gypping artists out of money or thinking you're entitled to get free music.
I don't know. I'd support a system like Napster that could keep track of what's being listened to (NOT who's listening to it) and charge royalties. Sign Napster up with ASCAP and BMI, put them on some sort of revenue-generating business plan (advertising would be annoying - the subscription model would do exceedingly well here, now that I think about it), have 'em keep track of the songs, and wambara! You have a working model that a) protects the copyright of the works and b) makes sure an artist gets what's coming to them.
You know, kind of like legalizing pot. *)
posted by solistrato at 9:14 AM on May 3, 2000
"The older you become, the more you agree with the Republicans."
When a band starts out small, it's in their best interest to get heard any way they can. Once they're multimillionaires, it's in their best interest to restrict access to everything and charge through the nose for it.
It's like the actress who does a nude scene in some schlocky piece of crap when she's 22 and then disavows it once she's 32 and an international star.
I don't see this changing anytime soon. Even bands that get discovered through MP3 will eventually sign to a major label. Why? Because that's where the money is. Plus, it's a controlled, efficient, organized method of distribution, as compared to the relative mess of the Internet.
As I continue to think about Napster, I find my position evolving. At first, it was a very black-white "don't steal music" argument. Then I started thinking about what all this means for music in general, as a medium.
I don't think there's anything wrong with MP3 or trying to get your voice out there, but there is something wrong with gypping artists out of money or thinking you're entitled to get free music.
I don't know. I'd support a system like Napster that could keep track of what's being listened to (NOT who's listening to it) and charge royalties. Sign Napster up with ASCAP and BMI, put them on some sort of revenue-generating business plan (advertising would be annoying - the subscription model would do exceedingly well here, now that I think about it), have 'em keep track of the songs, and wambara! You have a working model that a) protects the copyright of the works and b) makes sure an artist gets what's coming to them.
You know, kind of like legalizing pot. *)
posted by solistrato at 9:14 AM on May 3, 2000
This is a Jon Katz opinion about this. Many of you may have seen it, but I wanted to post it here for those who did not. He's not at his most lucid, but he makes points that are good. I doubt that many of us will have no problem going along with his boycott of the music from these jerks.
posted by Dean_Paxton at 7:43 PM on May 3, 2000
posted by Dean_Paxton at 7:43 PM on May 3, 2000
Anyone feeling nervous for Metallica's financial healthy can now pay Lars.
posted by luke at 9:39 PM on May 3, 2000
posted by luke at 9:39 PM on May 3, 2000
« Older I wish that this page | Autobloggatio Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by hobbes at 4:09 PM on May 2, 2000