OK, does anyone know if the whole “Cliff Burton drew the ace of spades before he died” story is true or just some kind of drunken butt-rock bulls**t?
I remember seeing Lars on an MTV program years back detaling the event. Cliff did lose in some kind of drawing game, but I don’t remember the details exactly. Why does it matter? He’s dead now, and Metal (ball) lica sucks now. Sellouts. That stuff with napster was just unacceptable.
YEAH! Jerks. I hate it when bands try to make a living or protect their intellectual property.
Someday, when I’m in a rock group, I hope nobody buys my albums and I’m starving on the street! That’ll be cool.
jarbaby
well smart guy, all indicators point to PROFITS for metallica. Yes, its true, my clueless friend, all the research that has been done (admittedly little, but its all we have) shows that MP3 file sharing INCREASES music sales. Besides, Metallica used to be all for pirated recordings, that is how they “released” thier first album, “no life till leather” They ENCOURAGED people to dub it. If napster was around then, they would have used it, end of story. Now they did a complete 180 and are trying to shut it down. WTF?
They also used to be A-OK with people bootlegging thier live shows, and now they are 100% against it.
As Bill Hicks would say, “They are just another whore in the capatilist gang-bang”
I’m a girl, but thanks.
Yes…and I give out samples of my writing to anyone who asks for it. I’ll keep doing it untill someone says “Wow, this is good enough to sell”. You see, I want writing to be my career…I’d like to make money off of it. God bless capitalism. :: insert flag waving here ::
Plenty of bands enjoy the ‘idea’ of filesharing, and I believe Metallica is one of them. The technology of simply downloading anything you want from home is ideal. But it needs to be regulated and it’s ridiculous to think that it will be feasible to obtain everything you want for free. Several bands who used to praise the advent of NAPSTER have changed their minds once they saw their CD sales fall.
And really, do a brief informal survey of everyone you know, and ask them this:
If you could get this album for free, would you buy it?
I think that will be telling.
And if you care to, reread the second part of my first sentence:
Metallica doesn’t belong to you, my friend. Nor do their songs. If they don’t want you to have them…you can’t have them.
In other words… they ain’t your bitch.
jarbaby
No, it hasn’t. The research indicates exactly the opposite, which is only to be expected.
Metallica has every right to protect what’s theirs. Why exactly to you think you have the right to take something without the owner’s permission?
By the Napster Principle, I can come by and take anything of yours I want. Don’t tell me it hurts you financially or causes you inconvenience – your wishes don’t count. You’re just the owner and have no rights, according to Napster. That’s a nice computer you’re using – I think I’ll take that. You won’t miss it (I’ve decided that, so your objections don’t matter). That should be OK with you, right?
Those who defend unlimited file sharing are basically little children who love getting something for nothing, and who cry because someone tell them they just can’t take whatever they want.
The writing you’ve put on this board is good enough to sell.
Sure you want to type anything else?
Damn…and i was just about to put up my new short story:
The Seduction of Manservant Hecubus
jarbaby
Gosh, trust a Napster debate to bring everybody out on their high horses…
You know I doubt people would pirate so much if the music companies didn’t sell their damn cd’s for 15-18 bucks a pop. Christ, I can get a dvd for about that much (okay, double that for something new, but you get the idea).
I SERIOUSLY doubt that most of that money is going to the bands. On top of that, how different, really is using Napster to listen to one or two songs, than taping them off the radio? Sure, the sound quality is somewhat better, and you could theoretically rip the entire album, if you were a bastard, but it’s not all that different. And mp3’s really aren’t a good replacement for the store-bought thing–you don’t have the album notes, professional recording quality and you’re stuck listening to it on your computer or your mp3 player, which leaves a bit to be desired.
I’ve never heard the ace of spades story. Considering the number of Metallica fans I’ve known over the years and exposure I’ve had to heavy metal trivia, that’s a good sign, it isn’t generally a widely accepted story.
Yeah, I watched the VH1 special. I don’t recall what card it was, but him and Kirk drew cards to see who would get the top bunk. Cliff drew the highest card and won. Kirk went through some heavy thinking if it wasn’t for that card, he would’a been squashed instead of Cliff.
**
What research? Just because record sales were up at the same time Napster was active doesn’t show cause and effect.
**
So they changed their mind. So what? If they don’t want their music distributed through Napster that should be the end of the story.
Marc
Cites, please?
I’ve seen one person flat-out assert that Napster causes
increased record sales, someone assert that’s BS, and
another person quite correctly point out that just
because album sales went up doesn’t mean it was Napster
that caused it.
So, can we get some cites from either side? I’m not
terribly picky, just about anything will do. I just want
some facts to dicker over, instead of straight assertions.
As for me, I’m in the “Napster good” camp. But, I’m
also (grudgingly) supportive of Metallica’s right to
control their music. (Though I do think they’re both fools
and hypocrites, since I believe that Napster does
indeed increase album sales, and they’re quite open
about the fact that their early success was due
in a large part to bootlegging.)
-Ben
Yeah, it’s painful, seeing the guys in Metallica begging for spare change in the street like that. They look like they haven’t had a bite to eat in at least 3, maybe 4 hours.
OK. BACK TO THE OP…
I saw that too… and I have seen that interview at least a dozen times. Kirk said it, and he DID say it was the Ace of Spades too. He looked mighty serious when he said it too.
Sorry to continue the digression from the OP, but…
There is a substantial difference between long-established bands like Metallica and more recently successful artists: the details in their record contract.
Typically, until a band has been successful for years they make very little per album sold. This because they sign initial contracts very favorable to the record companies in order to get signed. (this is not entirely unfair; a lot of acts who flop early cost the companies money…) These bands make most of their money from touring. Pirating music presumably can only help ticket sales for concerts, and gives some publicity.
Long-established acts have negotiated for contracts from a position of strength, or in some cases have their own record label. They make most of their profit from record sales. At the same time, they benefit least from extra publicity. (I expect the vast majority of people downloading Metallica are already familiar with some of their older work, for example)
I find nothing hypocritical about a band being happy about pirating when getting their first contract and early in their career when they need the publicity and most of their money comes from ticket sales at concerts; then, when they finally get to a point where they are well known and make substantial money from record sales, they should logically become more protective of their intellectual property.
The people I find most hypocritical in the situation are the newer bands playing holier-than-thou with respect to established bands. The opinion about piracy in both cases is based on simple self-interest, but young bands often pretend they are somehow morally superior to established bands for encouraging such things as Napster.
In my view it’s irrelevant how Napster effects sales. This is simply a matter of the right to intellectual property.
[OP] I think an eyewitness account is the best evidence you’re going to get for an anecdote like this. I don’t think it’s so unlikely that it should be dismissed out of hand, anyhow. [/OP]
Welcome to the Straight Dope Message Board. In the future, please don’t use insults and the like in any other forum than the BBQ Pit. Thank you.
Just a note, keep in mind that cd’s don’t really make money for the band. They get that through touring and other things. The people that really get hurt are the labels and distribution people. And they aren’t millionaires, they are just regular people trying to make a living.
As for Napster, I use it mostly for getting live shows and singles. And those prompt me to get the CD’s. Of course, my S.O. works in the industry so I get them for free anyway, so take my comments with a grain of salt.
Starr
-
I was taking the example to the extreme.
-
Who are you to say who has made enough money and who hasn’t?
and
- It was mostly a reference to the concept of “selling out”.
Jason Newstead (sp?) said it best:
“That’s right. We sell out. EVERY CONCERT…EVERY NIGHT”
jarbaby
[slight hijack]Okay, so explain to me how copying a song I hear on the radio is different than downloading the song from Napster? I mean, one’s allowed under current fair use laws (those will most likely be changing soon) and the other’s not. WTF? Check out Napster Bad at Camp Chaosfor a slightly screwy take on the whole issue. Really funny, but not suitable for little kiddies! [/slight hijack]
The difference between the radio or tv taping and mp3 sharing is that with the analog tapes everyone was using, the record companies knew that although the teenagers were taping records and tapes and radio shows, the quality reduced with every generation, it took a lot of time and hassle, and the tapes melted in cars and just wore out.
With mp3s, none of this is true. It sets up a system where no one’s copy is ever really gone, and you can find whatever you want worldwide without having to actually pay the people who put in the effort to produce it.
Once all those boom boxes and car CD players come programmed to play mp3 CDs, the record industry will essentially implode if it doesn’t come up with a way to copy-protect the songs and make it hard to find what you want on the web. That’s why Napster was such an overnight hit - it was so easy to use.