one rule for them one rule for us
Metallica drummer and notorious Napster naysayer Lars Ulrich has admitted he illegally downloaded his band’s latest album from a file-sharing website. The heavy metal rocker told US music channel VH1 he wanted to test how the process worked. “I sat there myself and downloaded ‘Death Magnetic’ from the internet just to try it …
Given he has freely distributed electronic copies of the music (which is the same as freely distributing CDs as a promo) does this mean people can legally download it now? Or, is it just the people who were connected whilst he did the download?
Or, is it just the pieces his system actually uploaded during the process that counts as free?
How do you prove which bits are which, and what is the value?
that he'll be providing his own details to the RIAA like he did with thousands of his (now former) fans previously? Admittedly, they lost as many fans from St Anger as they did from the lawsuits...
The man is a prize twat, who's rivalling Gene Simmons for arrogance and a "let's put Metallica on <INSERT ITEM HERE> to make some more cash!!" attitude, but without the ability to take the piss out of himself.
Dave Mustaine and Jason Newstead FTW!!!
"I figured if there is anybody that has a right to download ‘Death Magnetic’ for free, it’s me."
That counts as a lost sale, therefore he is stealing money directly from the record label. No one has the right to do that, whatever their justification. His actions and attitude are killing the music industry. Killing. One could argue that his shite music was already doing a good job of that, though...
I hope now he's confessed to his crime, he will be repaying the rights holders (his record company and by proxy his bandmates).
If he claims that HE is the rights holder, then how about this; He was using peer-to-peer filesharing, and so he would have been not only downloading the album but sharing it too. As he, as the owner, has made it available for download, I assume that it's OK by him that the rest of us do as well.
Even though he/they may be the copyright holders, they've deprived their record label of a sale. We all know that a downloaded album is a lost sale, don't we.
Funny thing is that if he installed his bittorrent client with all the default settings it's probably still on his machine, running on boot and sharing the album to other bittorrent users. ‘Wow, this is how it works." implies he had no idea how p2p actually worked.
Still don't agree with downloading music/media though.
If you want the music, buy it.
If you don't want a greedy record label to get your money, buy music from an indy musician, or a label that gives most of the money to the artist.
Pirate, well he's one of them now.
"if there is anybody that has a right to download ‘Death Magnetic’ for free, it’s me.”
Nope, I'm afraid not. This is a classic representation of why people like Lars shouldn't be able to make court cases out of this kind of thing. He doesn't understand that:
1. His "stealing music" argument goes out of the window, because he is still "stealing" it from his other bandmates, production team, and anyone else who was owed money as a result of purchasing it in a shop.
2. If he is downloading it via P2P, he is also (probably) sharing it and allowing other people to get it.
Reminds me of when the Red Hot Chili Peppers released their last album and Flea got all arsey about it, but later admitted he would have downloaded it too if only he "knew how". Sad.
Paris - because this is as dumb as... well you know the rest.
Ulrich couldn't have illegally downloaded the album at all. The "crime" involved in downloading an album is copyright infringement, not anything to do with the process itself. Since Ulrich is one of the copyright holders, it's impossible for him to infringe on copyright by downloading the album. Now, if he downloaded someone else's copyrighted works instead, that would be illegal...
Sorry to inject some common sense here, but it's perfectly legal to use P2P software, and there are many legal uses for it no matter what the RIAA propaganda pretends.
Everyone seems to be banging on about 'a lost sale' and 'stealing' but surely he was never going to buy it anyway. He could get it for free whenever he wanted to.
Some people are just moaning for the sake of it.... Anyone would think it's a Friday!
Paris because I bet she 'gets it' for free.
"So, Metallica’s drummer’s views about peer-to-peer downloading have clearly mellowed in recent years."
From the statements in this article that's a ridiculous conclusion. The implication in his statements is that this was the first time he'd ever downloaded anything from a file-sharing site (given his apparent surprise at the ease), and he did so in order to see whether or not his work was really being so easily pirated.
The subsequent leap that this in any way represents a mellowing of his views, let alone 'clearly', is nothing more than conjecture. For all anyone knows this has simply hardened those views, unless the author is holding back some other piece of the puzzle.
I'm not expressing any opinion here regarding Metallica, Lars Ulrich, or the legality of the process. But if you're going to infer things then print the quotes that led you to that inference - otherwise you're just making stuff up.
Answer : No.
Grow up, children.
If you get a "free" DVD with a magazine or newspaper, that's *your* copy, and you're not allowed to make copies for other people.
If Lars's installation of Bittorrent (or whatever) gave away 50% of the album, that 50% may be legitimately free to the recipient(s) -- however, just like the magazine covermount DVD, that doesn't give the recipient the right to redistribute it, and it certainly doesn't give you or me (third if not fourth parties) the right to distribute it free.
Thumb down because there's no "shut your freebooting yapper" icon.
With a CD, the band gets on average around 10% and the composer usually an additional 10%. For a singer songwriter pretty much the maximum royalties they get from a CD sale is 20%. In his case as a single member of the band he would get much less. This means he has stolen a bare minimum of 80% of the cost of the album.
I think the only solution is 20 years hard labour for the guy.
Just as an aside, my 1000 CD+ MP3 collection is all legal. I've never downloaded music from the tubes. That makes me more of a law-abiding citizen than more righteous than though Ulrich.
I've recently started using uTorrent to download copies of a lot of the LPs I've got gathering dust in the wardrobe, rather than drag them out and spend a couple of week meticulously copying and cleaning them up.
Am I still ok to hate copyright thieves, or have I now gone over to the dark side??
"...ran out of creative ideas after the black album."
The black album was shite. They started to suck after
Cliff Burton passed away, as he kept Lars & James from
being the Yuppie twats that they are now.
<img height="BIG" width="FAT" src="YUPPIE_TWAT_.LARS">
with his action, he has now technically made it legal to download and upload the album, since he used a P2P client, he was sharing the album the second he started downloading it. i may be mistaken, but if the owner of an album shares it in public, then anyone can legally get a free copy.
yeah i know, probably a bridge too far, but a funny thought nonetheless.
I'm not a lawyer. His band may own copyright to the music, but I'm pretty sure they don't own the distribution rights, so maybe he has broken a law here. If someone decided to take action against him for this, the world would implode from the weight of the irony.
I think I'll get ready for the drummer induced apocalypse.
and six friends sat round a table drinking wine (oddly enough) and someone said 'hey I got the new Metallica album, wanna listen?' so dutifully we popped it on and awaited the much vanted return to traditional values espoused by the band, worried about the fall of in their sales and fanbase from the two steaming turds they released.
It went like this...
track 1: Oh that's nicked straight from Ride The Lightning
track2: Hey hold on.. that's 'Of Wolf and Man'
track3: That's bloody Orion mixed with Sanitarium
... and so on
A pattern was clearly emerging. Yes, Metallica have actually become a Metallica tribute band. A bit much of a return to traditional values methinks.
We went through the entire album in about 10 mins then deleted it. Waste of bandwidth for the guy who grabbed it.
>i may be mistaken, but if the owner of an album shares it in public, then anyone can legally get a free copy.
Assuming he's the rights holder, then he can give away copies, however they're copies not production rights. Such rights would look different.
With any luck having seen what he's up against he'll realise that there is no way he's going to beat it through courts and technology.
Not all of the revenue generated from music sales belongs to the artist. In fact most of it belongs to the record label.
We are constantly told that "downloads = lost sales", therefore (using equally fuzzy thinking) Lars has clearly *stolen* money that belongs to the record label, distributor etc. rather than only denying himself his own royalties.
Time for the RIAA to step in methinks. His public admission of guilt should surely secure his conviction.
It probably took 30 min to download, because the first 3 albums he thought were "Death Magnetic" were actually KISS, Garth Brooks and ZZ Top. All who can now sue him. I'm sure the addictive nature of the power of the dark side...errrr the internet, have him still downloading random copyrighted crap. Someone should call his ISP.
Its NOT stealing, its copyright infringement. Which means its like having a law that makes it illegal to make a tracing of someone else's drawing - which may or may not be immoral, based on your opinion/upbringing/career/brainwashing.
In the future, when technology allows replication of any object (ie not just computer files), do you really think it will be possible to ban its use? Those with vested interests will fight tooth and nail to prevent it but just like the anti printing press, anti automobile, anti video recorder and anti P2P brigades, THEY WILL FAIL.
I don't think theres any crime in this as he did not knowingly redistribute the album.
Innocent until proven guilty- his reasons for accessing the music also seemed legitimate in the spirit of detecting & researching a crime.
Finally its going to be impossible for the RIAA to prove loss of earnings.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019