5 ms·

People just can't let something from 21 years ago go, can they? The band's done a complete 180 on everything regarding digital distribution, and it's been this

People just can't let something from 21 years ago go, can they? The band's done a complete 180 on everything regarding digital distribution, and it's been this way for years (I'm sure owning their masters and own label has something to do with it). You want a real culprit who actually thoroughly abused (and still to this day) the DMCA? Get mad at the RIAA. Also, if it weren't Metallica, it would have been someone else; virtually every big artist at the time felt the same way but didn't speak up.

michalstanko 6y ago
Not sure why are you downvoted. It's hard to find a similarly popular band sharing more stuff online for free these days than Metallica. Besides, the entire Napster thing was about a song "I Disappear" being available through Napster BEFORE it was even finished and sent to CD manufacturing, and, don't forget, it all happened in 2000. It has not been on their radar for about 20 years now. Hating based on skimming headlines of inaccurate articles is surely easier than trying to understand the band's motives.
- jcpham2 6y ago
  I guarantee you people still volunteer their time to bootleg anything this band does on the internet, forever.
capsulecorp 6y ago
I think many people don't buy their "complete 180", as that only came after their massively failed campaign. I have no doubt that if these guys were successful in their initial endeavor there would have never been a 180 as you call it. So really, there's not much to praise about a group who tried their hardest to do the wrong thing, and settled for the alternative when they failed measurably. Glad this happened to them, well deserved.
throwmusician 6y ago
As artists, why shouldn't Metallica get paid for their work? I can't believe the audacity of people thinking they should just be able to steal others' (by virtue of copying) music. The people I know in the music industry are some of the hardest working that I know... And to be clear, Metallica was never against online streaming / downloading, only illegal piracy.
- cush 6y ago
  Because fair use laws exist and educators like Rick Beato get screwed by these over-censoring algorithms.
- capsulecorp 6y ago
  Piracy isn't stealing, it may be illegal, but it does not fit the definition of stealing. Saying piracy is theft, is an antiquated line of thinking that anyone with common knowledge of digital products knows to be false.
  - lillesvin 6y ago
    Not the person you're replying to, but "steal" has been used in that sense for a long, long time—also long before the internet—e.g. "stealing ideas", so arguably it fits the definition just fine.
    - capsulecorp 6y ago
      "Stealing ideas" is also incorrect. A long running misconception doesn't make it not a misconception.
      - lillesvin 6y ago
        Come on. Following that logic you'll be hard pressed to speak a full meaningful sentence about a topic because, not surprisingly, language evolves! "Steal" has been used as "copy" long enough that it's part of the standard usage now (and has been for a long time), just like "literally" being used as an intensifier, or "cool" meaning "good" as opposed to referring strictly to temperature. And it's likely not even a misconception (like "a napron" => "an apron" was) but rather a conceptual metaphor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conceptual_metaphor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conceptual_metaphor), which is what helps you understand that you shouldn't be afraid of cutting yourself on someone's "sharp wit", and that you don't need to bring a ladder shopping even though "prices are rising". Hell, even "conception" (as in "misconception") was originally only used for talking about literal pregnancies, the metaphorical extension didn't come about until the 14th century (source: https://www.etymonline.com/word/conception https://www.etymonline.com/word/conception). Or is that okay? If so, how old does a semantic extensions have to be to be accepted into the lexicon?
AdrianB1 6y ago
They maybe did an 180, but they did not undo what they did, the effects are visible today and they are at fault. No, people cannot just let something go in such circumstances.
sidpatil 6y ago
> People just can't let something from 21 years ago go, can they? Tell that to the media industries lobbying to extend copyright terms to virtually infinite duration. The "something" they can't let go of from 21 years ago is the copyright on the material, of course.

michalstanko 6y ago

Not sure why are you downvoted. It's hard to find a similarly popular band sharing more stuff online for free these days than Metallica. Besides, the entire Napster thing was about a song "I Disappear" being available through Napster BEFORE it was even finished and sent to CD manufacturing, and, don't forget, it all happened in 2000. It has not been on their radar for about 20 years now. Hating based on skimming headlines of inaccurate articles is surely easier than trying to understand the band's motives.

jcpham2 6y ago
I guarantee you people still volunteer their time to bootleg anything this band does on the internet, forever.

capsulecorp 6y ago

I think many people don't buy their "complete 180", as that only came after their massively failed campaign. I have no doubt that if these guys were successful in their initial endeavor there would have never been a 180 as you call it. So really, there's not much to praise about a group who tried their hardest to do the wrong thing, and settled for the alternative when they failed measurably. Glad this happened to them, well deserved.

throwmusician 6y ago

As artists, why shouldn't Metallica get paid for their work? I can't believe the audacity of people thinking they should just be able to steal others' (by virtue of copying) music. The people I know in the music industry are some of the hardest working that I know... And to be clear, Metallica was never against online streaming / downloading, only illegal piracy.

cush 6y ago
Because fair use laws exist and educators like Rick Beato get screwed by these over-censoring algorithms.
capsulecorp 6y ago
Piracy isn't stealing, it may be illegal, but it does not fit the definition of stealing. Saying piracy is theft, is an antiquated line of thinking that anyone with common knowledge of digital products knows to be false.
- lillesvin 6y ago
  Not the person you're replying to, but "steal" has been used in that sense for a long, long time—also long before the internet—e.g. "stealing ideas", so arguably it fits the definition just fine.
  - capsulecorp 6y ago
    "Stealing ideas" is also incorrect. A long running misconception doesn't make it not a misconception.
    - lillesvin 6y ago
      Come on. Following that logic you'll be hard pressed to speak a full meaningful sentence about a topic because, not surprisingly, language evolves! "Steal" has been used as "copy" long enough that it's part of the standard usage now (and has been for a long time), just like "literally" being used as an intensifier, or "cool" meaning "good" as opposed to referring strictly to temperature. And it's likely not even a misconception (like "a napron" => "an apron" was) but rather a conceptual metaphor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conceptual_metaphor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conceptual_metaphor), which is what helps you understand that you shouldn't be afraid of cutting yourself on someone's "sharp wit", and that you don't need to bring a ladder shopping even though "prices are rising". Hell, even "conception" (as in "misconception") was originally only used for talking about literal pregnancies, the metaphorical extension didn't come about until the 14th century (source: https://www.etymonline.com/word/conception https://www.etymonline.com/word/conception). Or is that okay? If so, how old does a semantic extensions have to be to be accepted into the lexicon?

AdrianB1 6y ago

They maybe did an 180, but they did not undo what they did, the effects are visible today and they are at fault. No, people cannot just let something go in such circumstances.

sidpatil 6y ago

> People just can't let something from 21 years ago go, can they? Tell that to the media industries lobbying to extend copyright terms to virtually infinite duration. The "something" they can't let go of from 21 years ago is the copyright on the material, of course.