Metallica and Music share?

[Kara_J]

Now, judging by the Battle of the Bands results, there are a few Metallica fans here. There were also a few that brought up their fight with Napster, so when I found this article I thought I'd share it. There is a bit of ill-feeling and a few swearword here so be warned.

 

Linky

 

Discuss!  ;D

[Majsju]

Anything that makes people hate metallica is good in my book ;D

[KingKastchei]

As ever, there are two very good points of view on this discussion with the bands wanting to make a living, for the most part, and the fans wanting to enjoy the music for free.  Now, unfortunately, Metallica has kind of taken it to the extreme and gone totally overboard on the whole licensing subject.  The way I see things is if it's been played on the PUBLIC airwaves, it should be free, if it's not been broadcast publicly, then you should have to pay to get it.  It's a simple as that.  What this would do is allow bands to be heard by more people and entice them to go out and buy the album!

 

For example, there are 3 groups that are notoriously stingy about licensing their music to anybody for any purpose, Metallica, Led Zeplin, and Prince.  They won't let ANYBODY use their music for anything, whether in movies, games, comercials, etc.  Now, I think this is a very dumb thing because I can't tell you how many albums I've gone out and purchased THAT I WOULD NEVER HAVE THOUGHT OF BUYING because I heard a song in a game, a movie, or on TV that made me think, hey I would like this group!  By being so stingy, I think that many bands are shooting themselves in the foot and not allowing their product to be heard by as large an audience as possible.

[snin83]

Kast, you do have a point there by saying that making music available for free gets your name out there and avilable to a lot of people.  The problem is, that if just one song is available in a file share, then all the songs are probably available too.  And lets face it, 99% of the time, a person will just download an album rather than go out and buy it.  That is why that system doesnt work.  And that isnt right to do.  I mean, think about it, to make a full length album takes a lot of time.  There are countless hours of writing, recording, engineering, and tons of other stuff that goes into that hour or so of music on the CD.  It is the same thing as having an author release a new book, someone buying it and uploading the whole thing to the internet, and then anyone wanting to read it just downloading it for free.  Now it is illegal to do that with anything else except music.  And that is not fair to the people who put their time and lives into it and get nothing in return.  That is my rant.  I think that sites like Myspace, that display songs for playback only, not downloading unless the authors want it that way, are the best solution to that.  You get the exposure that you need, without having the songs ripped off in the process.  This does promote and entice people to go out and buy CDs.  Now I am done.  ;D

[KingKastchei]

I was suggesting having only those few songs be available for free, but having restrictions on everything else.  But, yeah the Myspace thing is actually a great way to get your band visible.

[Samuraiflip05]

As a devout childhood fan, I was extremely disappointed two-fold by Metallica when this happened.  First they went mainstream rock with the Black album and beyond, then they went all Jackie Chan on the Napster thing.  Now I understand the problem with downloads being free.  But, they went so far overboard that they destroyed their credibility with fans forever.  Sue the company fine, but pushing so hard as to hand deliver the customer list for criminal pursuit is too much.  Next thing you know Lars will want to sue every person who ever recorded a song off of the radio for use on a "Mix Tape".  Do I think the downloads should be free...no.  But, Metallica destroyed it's existing fan base......who knows with their "reinvention" maybe that is what they wanted.