Music sharing discussion from the Metallica album thread

Thread started here

Twin_Cam wrote: But there is no damn way I'm ever paying for a Metallica album again. Screw them. If they hadn't been such royal douchebags and sued Napster, I'd feel differently haha.

Metallica did come off like whiny rockstars over Napster. Let's not mention how when they were underground they encouraged bootlegs and piracy of their own albums in an effort to build a fan base.

The other problem with the Napster debacle was that the supposed enforcers didn't understand the technology or how to work with it. I knew plenty of Metal-licka fans who bought the albums, ripped them to their computers, and were on the "getting sued!" list created by Metallica's label. They had never shared the songs or done anything but buy, listen to, and enjoy the music.

Metallica really shot themselves in the foot. It didn't help that most of their fans now think their music really sucks.

Duke wrote: I could also argue that the suit has done a lot of good, since it has caused the recording industry to rethink distribution methods. Even *more* importantly, it has prompted an entire generation of new bands to promote and distribute their own music directly to the public. I've got dozens of albums at home, legally acquired for free (or nearly free) from the bands that produced them. It's prompted me to find, enjoy, and support a lot of bands I otherwise never would have heard of.

I'd like to address 2 pts here. 1 - The record industry didn't rethink distribution due to Metallica. They rethought it because they're sales are in the toilet and falling year after year. They see the writing on the wall. Controlling the physical distribution of music no longer allows them the stranglehold they once held on music and it's sales. 2 - The new way of distribution has allowed new bands to get their music to the consumers directly. Metallica didn't advocate this either. I do agree that the rise of P2P networks has helped break bands that wouldn't have seen the light of day otherwise.

fastEddie wrote: Yeah, "stick it to the man" works until you become popular and are suddenly "the man"!!

Twin_Cam wrote: But there is no damn way I'm ever paying for a Metallica album again. Screw them. If they hadn't been such royal douchebags and sued Napster, I'd feel differently haha.

Metallica did come off like whiny rockstars over Napster. Let's not mention how when they were underground they encouraged bootlegs and piracy of their own albums in an effort to build a fan base.

The other problem with the Napster debacle was that the supposed enforcers didn't understand the technology or how to work with it. I knew plenty of Metal-licka fans who bought the albums, ripped them to their computers, and were on the "getting sued!" list created by Metallica's label. They had never shared the songs or done anything but buy, listen to, and enjoy the music.

Metallica really shot themselves in the foot. It didn't help that most of their fans now think their music really sucks.

Duke wrote: I could also argue that the suit has done a lot of good, since it has caused the recording industry to rethink distribution methods. Even *more* importantly, it has prompted an entire generation of new bands to promote and distribute their own music directly to the public. I've got dozens of albums at home, legally acquired for free (or nearly free) from the bands that produced them. It's prompted me to find, enjoy, and support a lot of bands I otherwise never would have heard of.

I'd like to address 2 pts here. 1 - The record industry didn't rethink distribution due to Metallica. They rethought it because they're sales are in the toilet and falling year after year. They see the writing on the wall. Controlling the physical distribution of music no longer allows them the stranglehold they once held on music and it's sales. 2 - The new way of distribution has allowed new bands to get their music to the consumers directly. Metallica didn't advocate this either. I do agree that the rise of P2P networks has helped break bands that wouldn't have seen the light of day otherwise.

fastEddie wrote: Yeah, "stick it to the man" works until you become popular and are suddenly "the man"!!

Well...yeah.

Ain't that the way it sometimes works? Climb the ladder and then pull it up behind you to keep down the competition?

For good or for ill:

Metallica isn't creating the product it used to.

Music sharing over the internet has revolutionized the music industry. In my opinion, for the better. I listen to a lot more music from a larger of variety of artists due to their increased exposure. This would not have happened in a top down style distribution network that was in place.

Metallica isn't creating the product it used to.

They sure don't (listening to Leper Messiah right now). insert metal smilie

I think file sharing is creating a much more realistic music industry that is trying harder to impress during shows, selling merchandise, and creating better music overall.

I like the fact that bands can't just make a crappy album and expect to make millions off of it, but bands like Radiohead can release an album for free and still make it worthwhile.

I think you'll start seeing smaller shows more often, with the sound difference between live and recording being much less.

I think their(record companies) historical reaction to the shifting needs of the population has been poor. I think they have been very technology adverse in their distribution side.

Sure, they do have a right to go after those that are illegally copying their music. The very sad part was that it has been 8 or 9 years since MP3's exploded and even with the success of itunes, the legit MP3 industry has not taken off.

I would have liked and still would like them to take these new technologies and revolutionize distribution. They should have been on this at the first peep of Napster, and the company that did so successfully could maybe have had a significant competitive advantage over the other companies.

Their repeated efforts to use "anti-pirate" software just taunts and challenges pirates. I believe that continuing down the hardcore anti-pirate path is only leading to bad press and drives people to pirate more, "stick it do them" kinda vibe.

So.. What does this mba think they should do?.... I think they need to better embrace the way digital media enters into peoples lives. They need to have the ability to provide some sort of added value to justify their existence. NIN and coldplay have both proved that a label and formal distribution is no longer needed to publish a electronic(mp3) album. So.. they better get their crap together cause they are becoming obsolete very quickly...

I used to buy a CD atleast once or twice a week. I am inept at using computers but as simple as itunes is I havent bought a CD in years. If something comes out that I want i give itunes $9.99 and it's on my ipod, and if i need an actual cd for the wife to listen to in the car, i can burn it myself. And if the album sucks and I just want one song, I can do that too. I couldn't tell you where my nearest record store is.