The user who was selling Metallica's soul has been banned by EBay for bidding on another item he/she was selling. The strange part of all of this of course, is that I recognized their username when I read this story. Why can't we delete particular items in memory like we do with files on a computer?
First it was Metallica's integrity for sale... now the RIAA's Soul and Integrity is for sale. Funny, I didn't think they had a soul. Shamelessly stolen from Fark
Napster throws Metallica a curveball. Napster has been pointing out to its kicked-off users a certain provision of the DMCA: If an ISP kicks a user off a service for violating copyright, that user may file a counternotification if they believe they were wrongly accused. The plaintiff (Metallica) then has 10 days to respond with a lawsuit directly against that user. If they choose not to respond, the ISP must restore the account. If enough users (among the 300,000 blocked) file counternotifications, Metallica may wish it had never begun this process.
Napster did it- blocked more than 317,000 names used by its subscribers, which have been identified by the hard rock band, Metallica, as allegedly infringing on the copyrights of the group's music.
Metallica's Integrity for sale! Don't know if what's left of it is worth the price though.
Metallica and Napster: The Chat. My favorite quote: "For the doubters out there, Metallica will carry on for the next 20 years," Ulrich said. "Whether you're around for the ride or not, that's your problem, not ours." Oh, really?
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.
Napster users are named in the latest battle Some have admitted to being a criminal while others say who cares? Metallica sure doesn't seem like it is going to back down. The article says Metallica is scheduled to chat with fans online at the Artistsdirect.com Web site to explain its fight against Napster. So is any action going to be taken against the fans who want the music?
IU bans Napster again Thursday after Metallica (along with E/M Ventrues and Creeping Death Music) filed a suit against Napster. IU joins Yale (who banned again on April 14) and U. of Southern California...all of whom were mentioned in the suit.
Your chance to come clean to Metallica Here is your chance to pay Metallica back for all the MP3's you downloaded illeagally.
Another music artist that doesn't get it: Dr. Dre. I knew the Metallica thing could start a rash of followers, hopefully this isn't a trend. Why is it so difficult for artists to see that fans trading their music is a good thing? (including better sales of discs thanks to the people hearing the mp3's and better concert sales from fans buying tickets to see them live)
WTF!?! Everyone's favorite band (back in high school) Metallica is suing Napster and a handful of universities
WTF!?! Everyone's favorite band (back in high school) Metallica is suing Napster and a handful of universities for unlawful trading of their music. This is ridiculous, and I hope it doesn't set a precedence. If anyone would just slap a revenue model on napster so artists could get paid for their work, none of this piracy crap would happen. And Metallica, what about the other apps that do the same thing, are you going to sue them too? And what about every other band on earth? What do you expect to get out of universities, tighter controls over bandwidth, or student monitoring of internet usage? What about every cable modem and DSL provider that lets people use Napster, are you going after them too? Why don't you sue everyone on earth that's heard your songs but didn't pay for them? Side question: Is it better to burn out or fade away?
Page: 1 2