As far as I know Metallica were a good band. Right up until the Black album, everyone (at least all the old-skool fans) agreed. Then they cut their hair off and start making crappy songs and suing Napster.

They don't know what they are talking about, and in my oh-so-bloated opinion I reckon they will lose more fans this way than revenues in "stolen" mp3s. It's dumb.

Now the RIAA's argument is that Napster is killing record sales ... that must be a bunch of crap, because since I got Napster I have bought much more music than I ever would have otherwise. I don't see myself as that different to the average muso, so there must be others like me pushing the sales up. If I have something copied that I use a lot, I will try to buy it. Simple as that.

Finally, what's all this "Napster is a server and violates or TOS" crap that broadband ISPs are terminating users' accounts with? I mean, come on, they're just whinging that people are using the broadband bandwidth (that they are paying for) to full effect. Well, awww diddums. Screw them.

Rant over, for now.

------------------
-- incubus
As I chase the leaves like the words I never find ...

quote:

---

I still think that they're loosing money on mp3s...

---

Then how do you explain that the RIAA reported over one billion dollars of growth in revenues in the music industry last year from the previous year?

MP3's aren't costing them anything. People still go to stores and buy CDs online. Most of the mp3s I find and like I go out and buy the CD; the ones I don't like I just delete. I have to agree with incubus here: if it weren't for mp3s I probably wouldn't own even half of my current music collection.

My personal theory on the whole mp3 issue is that the big name groups that have tons of marketing power behind them are losing audiences to lesser-known groups that would probably go unheard of otherwise. They're mad because these small groups don't advertise much at all, yet people buy up their CDs because they found a great song by said group online. As with Metallica, people can download the latest album, say to themselves "this blows," and not waste their money on it. If Metallica feels like they're losing money, maybe they should make music worth buying.

------------------
< j1mmy >

And the thing about people going down buying a cd after hearing an mp3. That's bullshit. Maybe YOU do that and maybe some others do that, but I know lotsa lotsa people that don't. They download everything they can get and organize it on their mp3cds.

And I think that the Napster users are hypocrites. They did something illegal. They knew it was illegal when they did it. And now they won't take their responsibility. Instead they say that Metallica sucks, because they tries to take control over their product, which they produced, which they should be paid for.

And before disgussing the enormous profit, we should take a look at the structure of RIAA. I don't disagree with you on the fact that they're a wealthy money making machine, but the fact that they're producing more and more cds each year makes their profit go up!

But Metallicas' (and almost every other artist) copyrights has been broken, and they are pursuing their rights. I can't believe why people is freaking out about that. The copyists are criminals in this matter, no matter what their excuses are.

And the "recording from the radio issue" (posted a while ago) is crap too. First of all you will NOT get the same media quality from a radio recording. Try reading a bit about noise and frequenzys and you'll find out pretty quick. Second, you won't be able to get everything from the mp3-librarys/search-engines available. Third, you will almost never be able to record a complete song.

Illegal mp3s are illegal (no shit) and no matter for what purpose you use them they won't be less illegal. I've downloaded lot's of mp3s, and that doesn't make it less illegal. I like them, but that doesn't make them less illegal. If someone comes up and say that I should go to court I would (did actually) go there and take my penalty.

I think doing the artist out of money blows. A lot of my friends are musicians and dead against piracy. But if you read up on it Metallica turned up on Napster's doorstep with 325,000 usernames telling Napster to ban them. What about the ones with legit mp3s? That's by no means illegal.

------------------
-- incubus
As I chase the leaves like the words I never find ...

------------------
Naw git offa mah Properdy!™

The thing is, the RIAA are scared shitless. The .mp3 format enables artists to cut out the middlemen (ie, them). Whereas before it was difficult to get off the ground as an artist, cos of the costs like pressing CDs, it's now relatively easy what with cheap CD burners and .mp3s to put online. Some relatively unheard of bands like < http://www.tricksupontravellers.co.uk/ > are getting quite popular through their internet prescence as well as the live circuit.

It's just sour grapes on the RIAAs side.

------------------
-- incubus
As I chase the leaves like the words I never find ...

mp3: nobody likes you. we don't even need you anymore
riaa: give me money!
mp3: fuck you!
riaa: i need money!
mp3: eat my shit, cocksucker!
riaa: i need more money!
mp3: i rape your sister and kill your dog and distribute your music worldwide! haha!
riaa: <sobbing>

[This message has been edited by j1mmy (edited May 22, 2000).]

nice j1mmy

------------------
Naw git offa mah Properdy!™

I think the Metallica vs. Napster thing sucks, but that doesn't make me hate them. I think everybody would do the same in their situation. And I still think, that it's wrong to copy music. I've done it anyway, but it's wrong. And yes, it is free advertisement, but they haven't agreed to advertise. And I think that it's the artists music, and noone should tell the artist what to do with it. They should ask the artist if they could get it.

Imagine one of those pro painters. They maybe paint 200 quality pictures in a lifetime. That means, that it'll cost alot of money to buy one, cuz he's got to get some money to cover his expences and to put some food on his table.

It's the same way with bands. That Metallica is a rich band isn't a valid excuse for stealing their art (which you don't even like). One of my friends stores all of his mp3s on cds. He's got about 100 mp3cds now, and he haven't got a single audio cd. Lot's of people are that way...

And when you say that the music industrys profit has improved, it's because the production has improved. I still think that they're loosing money on mp3s...

Think I'll stop writing now, hehe

------------------
-- incubus
As I chase the leaves like the words I never find ...

1. Taping songs from a radio:
a) you won't get the same quality
b) you won't be able to copy what you want...when you want it!
c) you won't be able to get all the songs cur. available on mp3 on the net
d) you will (almost) never get a complete song.
z) It is NOT the same thing!

2. Making music worth buying
a) Don't tell the artists what to do. Else they wouldn't be artists.
b) Why can they not play what they want to play?
c) Why are you talking about music not worth buying? Why listen to it??

3. Buying a cd
In my country every music store has got listening posts, and you can hear almost all the cds you want. Really makes your mp3 concept unnescesarry.

Sorry if I my tags seem a bit angry/whatever! I don't really know how good my english skills are, since no one ever corrected them (no one but Octavian ). I'm not angry, I just like a good discussion...Even though this one is getting a bit tiresome and old...

[This message has been edited by veistran (edited May 23, 2000).]

------------------
-- incubus
As I chase the leaves like the words I never find ...

If you dont believe me, read it.

As far as Metallica are concerned, I urinate heavily on them and the RIAA for their recent actions, we all knew that Metallica and the RIAA were money grabbing SOB's, but this just goes to proove this fact all the more.

Oh, and it was 310,000 and not 325,000 as stated by one person, I forget who.

(Sorry for continuing this after so long, but it seems so many of you - though you try to argue for each side respectively - are missing major points in the argument, one of which (the EULA) I have mentioned here.)

------------------
When darkness calls and the pain and suffering begin again, you can guarantee that I shall be the instigator.
-
Kevin "Kayy" Beadle, The Proprietor and Innovator of Kayyos-Vx WebDesigns.

End of rant........PERIOD

Second, whether or not metallica rules or sucks isnt the point at hand. whether or not the riaa blows chunks or owns is also not the point. the point is the theif (person getting mp3s) is getting mp3s from the dealer (person uploading mp3s) and they were put together using the hookup (napster), now how likely is it that the theif would have hooked up with the dealer without napster?

About the loss of profit. When they say they lost however much profit, they arent saying last year i made 30 dollars and this year i made 25. They are saying if everyone who owned a copy of this song payed for it, we would have 40 dollars, but i only have 30. The people who say they would have made 40 dollars are people called actuarys. They are math geniuses, and they do know what they are saying. They get payed a shitload of money for a reason. The reason that the industry profit went up is because of our friend inflation. if you make 1 trillion dollars in a year, and then inflation decreases the value of money by .1 percent, then you can have a billion dollar increase in sales and still make no more than the year before. Also props to kolben for pointing out the new band factor.

When metallica reported the users to napster, they had every right. even if i own 5000 copies of the black album, that doesnt mean i have the right to share it with other people unless metallica says "Sithiee has the right to share songs from the black album whenever he pleases" only then is it legal and moral. Basically you need to grow up and accept that no matter how many times you buy the cd, its still wrong to take mp3s.

on a more personal note - stop bashing metallica, if you dont like their music, fine. if you dont like what their doing, fine. But just because they have the balls not to bend over and take it up the ass like so many other people does not mean they are bad people. thats like saying "Hey Sithiee, you suck because you wouldnt let me stick my huge cock up your ass, everyone else is doing it, so you suck because you wont." No matter how childish that sounds, thats the same thing as insulting metallica cause they dont want their music pirated.

~Sithiee

------------------
A day without sunshine, is like, you know, night.

So you see ... a band with even less money, and they _promote_ file sharing on Napster.

It's the revolution and they know it ...

------------------
-- incubus
As I chase the leaves like the words I never find ...

By the way, napster says in their terms of use document that they retain the right to kick you off their service at any time with or without cause. Also, people who say that napster is not for mp3 trading, your wrong, Napster identifies itself as a trading post for mp3s, not for any old type of files. They claim to be big on protection of intellectual property, but they arent doing anything about it. This is what i spent 5th period looking up today. Isnt history class fun?

------------------
-- incubus
As I chase the leaves like the words I never find ...