Metallica at present?

It's a new sound for Metallica. I liked the old as much as anybody but you've got to give them credit for paving their own path. Just like Zeppelin man, they're in it for the music. All I hear is crying about the change in music and wah wah they want money for their work. You know, of all the musicians in the world the only one who we expected to stick up for their art was Metallica and they did it head on and without regret. You guys can moan and groan and bitch and complain and do whatever else it is you goddamn sheep do best but Metallica is always going to do what they do, and that's saying **** you to all and doing their own thing. Just keep an open mind about it.

Originally posted by Raskolnikov

Originally posted by Seve420
didn't know they sued Napster (pretty much telling their fans to go f*ck themselves if they won't fork out the money to pay for their albums)

That's a far more complicated issue than I think you can begin to comprehend.


Careful what you choose to argue about here, because chances are, somebody argues it better than you do.

If your up for a napster debate then I'm game

it's not a complicated issue at all, Mettalica told their fans to f*ck off unless you're willing to pay for our music

Originally posted by TheWizard

Originally posted by Raskolnikov

Originally posted by Seve420
didn't know they sued Napster (pretty much telling their fans to go f*ck themselves if they won't fork out the money to pay for their albums)

That's a far more complicated issue than I think you can begin to comprehend.


Careful what you choose to argue about here, because chances are, somebody argues it better than you do.

If your up for a napster debate then I'm game

it's not a complicated issue at all, Mettalica told their fans to f*ck off unless you're willing to pay for our music

Doesn't a painter have a right to control duplication and distribution of their paintings? And why shouldn't it be? Afterall, we're talking about this artist's means of existance.

It's no different with music.

Well, you say "it's the big labels that are affected by this."

Yeah, but it was the artist's choice to sign and now that which harms the label harms them.


Sharing/trading music when a band is cool with it = bomb diggity

Sharing/trading music when a band isn't cool with it = criminal activity

[Edited by Raskolnikov on 02-26-2004 at 01:17 AM]

A painter has no right to charge people who glance at his work, or inadventantly see it without being prepared to pay.
Man its illegal to tape record songs fof the radio but who cares!
Theres no excuse for the way the guys in metllica acted, the fundemental issue evolved around money and record sales, which is pathetic.

I'd like to add my opinion...

I can understand why Metallica were against Napster, but I can't understand why they thought shutting it down would make any kind of difference.

Napster is down right? Who here can still get Metallica songs from Kazaa?

Im guessing everyone.

Then if they shut down Kazaa, who can still get Metallica songs via FTP? Or at least go round to a friends house who can and get a copy.

Yet again, im guessing everyone.

The only way I can see Metallica stopping the sharing/trading of their music is if they can shut down the internet and make CDRW's illegal.

Metallica are rich and famous, but there's no ****ing way they're ever going to stop their music being shared.They should stop crying about it and be happy they make more in a year than most of us in a lifetime. I have downloaded loads of Metallica songs... I have also bought all their albums (apart from st anger).

If my CD gets scratched to ****ery or someone steals it.. whats the problem with me downloading the songs? I've already bought a few of their albums twice because they were stolen...

- J

[Edited by jamiephofe on 02-26-2004 at 09:00 AM]

I don't think they consider it "illegal" if you already own the album. You can rip every song off of every CD you own if you'd like. But, you aren't allowed to "share" them.

Originally posted by Axl_Rose
A painter has no right to charge people who glance at his work, or inadventantly see it without being prepared to pay.

Uhhh... why not? He'd just have to control where the painting was seen. If he allows it to be spread out over the city on bus stops, sure, you're right. But if he decides only to show it in specific art galleries, then he is charging people to see it. To be more specific, people are paying for the opportunity to see it, they might not even look at his particular painting.

An artist of any sort has all the rights in the world for his art. It's preposterous to say that "an artist has no right...". It's the audience that has the limited rights.

Originally posted by Jamiephofe
Metallica are rich and famous, but there's no ****ing way they're ever going to stop their music being shared.They should stop crying about it and be happy they make more in a year than most of us in a lifetime. I have downloaded loads of Metallica songs... I have also bought all their albums (apart from st anger).

It's not about who's rich and who's not rich. In the eyes of a Vietnamese sweatshop worker, you make more in one day than they'll ever see in a lifetime.

The issue here is not only about money, it's about the rights of musicians to control the distribution of their music.

Sure, it may seem selfish for Metallica to have shut down Napster, but I'm sure there are some bands out there that are completely behind Metallica's actions, since they defended the rights of musicians.

Originally posted by Jamiephofe
If my CD gets scratched to ****ery or someone steals it.. whats the problem with me downloading the songs? I've already bought a few of their albums twice because they were stolen...

Oh, yes, I forgot, the entire reason Napster was created... so that people could download mp3s for CDs which had been damaged or stolen...


If you own the CD, you can make as many copies as you need [u]for personal use[/u]. That includes backups. In fact, I have a friend who has copied all his CDs and only carries around the copies. That ensures that the originals will always be perfect, and there are no worries about losing the CD.

Originally posted by iamthe_eggman
Uhhh... why not? He'd just have to control where the painting was seen etc...

Yea I no but with music your subjected to it in so many ways its hard to control. Simply occurances like leading your CD to a friend or playing it at a part are illegal! Which is proposterous and impossible to govern.

I think the sole reason for metallicas objection to Napster was because they didnt want it to lower there level of "success" but costing them sales and money. Which I believe is petty for a band on their stature.

The law deems their music their property, unauthorized use or distribution will be dealt with accordingly. Property is property. You know. Whatever argument you can come up, if you steal, you're a scumbag. Metallica knows it, I know it, others on here know it. You're a scumbag man. I've got to admit, I am too. But I also believe in what Metallica's doing. You've got a decent tune, the one that seems to be catching and you wonder why your cd sales aren't going anywhere? It's because they don't have to buy your cd for that one tune, it's spread all across the world like a cheap whore's legs except in this case it's free. You're a musician and arguing AGAINST Metallica. Common man, we're all in it together, musicians I mean - I can see arguing against Metallica from some punk kid who doesn't know the difference but if you're reading this, odds are you're a musician and should be able to think.

"It's not about who's rich and who's not rich. In the eyes of a Vietnamese sweatshop worker, you make more in one day than they'll ever see in a lifetime.

The issue here is not only about money, it's about the rights of musicians to control the distribution of their music. "



Ok.. I agree that the part about them making more money was stupid. I know there are people who make practically nothing.

The point I was trying to get to is that the issue is alot bigger than a few programs, I agree with Metallica but don't think they did much good with the law suit. Kazaa is already just Napster with a different name, I don't know how they're going to stop music sharing unless they can monitor all the network traffic in the world.

- J

Originally posted by Axl_Rose
A painter has no right to charge people who glance at his work, or inadventantly see it without being prepared to pay.

This point is completely assenine.

If you've downloaded a song off of Kazaa or some other p2p client or from an FTP site, you haven't done anything even remotely inadvertantly. You actively searched for something and chose to download something you thought was probably it.


Back to the real world -- Artists do have the right to make you pay to go into a gallery and see their works, and they do have the right to make you pay to buy the painting, prints and/or reproductions of their original works if you want to take the work home with you. Downloading music illegally is like shoplifting the print.

If a band is fine with that, cool. More power to them. We all know the marketing potential that lies there.

However, you don't have the right to take away somebody else's right to choose what they share and what they do not. You can download for free as much of my old band's catalog as I can afford to host. The three of us are glad to see our music still get around. On the other hand, we respect that other musicians would want to restrict downloads to a few songs or not allow it all together. It's their right and you'll never see me support the subversion of somebody's else's rights.

I'm honestly somewhat disgusted to see downloading taken so casually on a site composed exclusively of musicians. We're talking about other people's art here, their heart and soul's work, something they've likely suffered emotionally and financially to put forth into recorded form for you to enjoy.

Too many of you look on this almost as if it was vigilante justice and try ot think of ways to rationalize and glorify it. But students of history and human nature realize that vigilante justice is not justice at all.

In a truely moral society, who can give you the right to decide for me what of my art I share and what I don't?

NOBODY.

[Edited by Raskolnikov on 02-26-2004 at 11:04 PM]

Originally posted by slipknot
i blame troghilyo its his style he changed metallica for ever!!!!!!!!!!!!

they should getrid of him............................................

it's Trujillo!!! And he's better than Jason!

St.Anger is just a complete different type of metallica, it's as it is now, not like the old times (master of puppets, ridew the lightning)...

But where are the solo's from Kirk?!

Look... I can fully understand the whole Napster thing with Metallica$h, Inc... Yeah it's their music and they should be able to make some cash, but before the Black Album, you were allowed to go to a concert, bootleg the songs, and distribute them freely. They didn't give a damn... Hell that's how they got started... You couldn't walk down the street without someone handing you a Metallica bootleg saying,"Here you gotta check this out".

I just find it ironic they were suing people for the exact same thing that got them to where they are... Funny how the world works EH?

Whatever, who cares? Hammet is never going to be able to play guitar better than he does in "One" and "Master of Puppets" both of which at least half of our members could have written in their sleep. And Hetfield is never going to have any legato rhythm. It's ALWAYS going to be the same boardlike staccato crap. That said, I love Metallica's old stuff, I have no clue why. It's like the Beatle's "I wanna hold you hand" or "Help" musically unskilled, but somehow SO catchy.

old mettalica rocks, ...yeah!