The ultimate metal pool

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 7164
  • Start date Start date

Who's better?

  • Iron Maiden

    Votes: 21 100.0%
  • Metallica

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    21
Perun said:
People still think Metallica sold out?

Sold out is a strong word, but they've been going steadily downhill ever since the Black Album, bar a few exceptions like S&M (which, while not a studio album, was a lot better than Reload or St. Anger) and Garage Inc (of which almost half had been released before as b-sides).  I think if Metallica "sold out" it wasn't with the Black Album nor Load, but a gradual process that included eg. the whole Napster thing.
 
I really don't see how people can get upset about that "Napster thing". Let me ask you this straight: If you found out that people are freely sharing a demo of your new song that you haven't yet released, and at the same time, found out that people are freely sharing your entire discography without paying a single fucking cent for it, what would you do?
 
Morally Metallica was right and their fans were wrong.  A lot of them seem totally ignorant as a matter of fact.  A couple of them advertised the buring of their 80s CDs and swore never to listen to Metallica again.

At first I thought the backlash would hurt Metallica's music, but really it is the bands own lack of creativity that is hurting them.
 
Perun said:
I really don't see how people can get upset about that "Napster thing". Let me ask you this straight: If you found out that people are freely sharing a demo of your new song that you haven't yet released, and at the same time, found out that people are freely sharing your entire discography without paying a single fucking cent for it, what would you do?

Metallica were, as far as I know, the only ("big") band to react so strongly.  Maiden didn't sue Napster.  And why sue only Napster?  Was Napster the only program used for piracy in those times?  I'm not particularly against the whole Napster thing; legally and morally Metallica had a right to it.  It's just that it shows an attitude that many other (metal?) bands didn't share.

Take this interviewwith Bruce:
"The changes in the music industry has not affected us adversely, because we always had a strong relationship with our fans," Iron Maiden singer Bruce Dickinson told DNAIndia.com..."

This is something Metallica should work on, in my opinion.
 
Invader said:
Metallica were, as far as I know, the only ("big") band to react so strongly.  Maiden didn't sue Napster.

Yeah, because Metallica were the first to notice. Even they only found out about Napster when they traced back said demo that was being played on the radio.

And why sue only Napster?  Was Napster the only program used for piracy in those times?

Yes, Napster was the only peer to peer program that had gained mass popularity back then. In fact, "to Napster" a song was a common verb at least where I lived. When Napster was taken over by Bertelsmann and took charges, we all thought that was the end of this sort of thing. I remember using Audiogalaxy and then Kazaa for a while, but they were killed too after a while.

I'm not particularly against the whole Napster thing; legally and morally Metallica had a right to it.  It's just that it shows an attitude that many other (metal?) bands didn't share.

Yeah, as I said, Metallica was the first band to find out about it and see what proportions the thing already had. I'm pretty sure that any other band, metal or not, that was in the position Metallica was in back then (again, to find out a studio demo of an unreleased song was shared here) would have acted in the same way.
 
I like a fair amount of Metallica's music.

Having said that, i think money is the only thing that matters to them. Some people say that Metallica didn't sell out, they're only doing what they want to do. How convenient for them, their mood always seems to fully blend with the global trends in rock music..i'm not talking about Black album. I'm talking about Load and Reload, completely alternative-influenced records, change of logo, change of style, sound, outfits, everything. After nu-metal, metalcore and other b*llshit became popular, they come out with St. Anger.

And in the height of their uber-commercial success, when they were making money like Bill Gates, they went on with holy crusade against Napster.

Invader is right, Metallica was the only big band to react so strongly. And Perun, you're wrong. The Napster hype was going for two years (at least) when they encountered legal issues. Everyone knew about Napster a while before that. Your neighbour's grandma knew about Napster.

The story goes even before Napster. MP3 sharing was going on for years, it boomed once the Pentium came in, because the 486 couldn't decode (with original algorithm) it in real-time, and Pentium (especially MMX) could encode it in decent time (cca 15 minutes was required for a full lenght album). People started ripping CD's and sharing music via newsgroups, private FTP's, IRC fileservers/XDCC, on every possible way you could imagine. Universities were full of music on their local networks. The recording industry saw that immediately, and went into propaganda alike that one with when cassete tape was introduced decades ago.

So it wasn't like Metallica discovered MP3 piracy and defended their copyrights. Bullshit. They were greedy for money. Nobody would say a thing if a bunch of minor bands went against Napster saying look, we're working our ass off to get a quid for our music and you're distributing it for free, but nooo...Metallica did that. That's why some fans were so pissed, because it cemented their opinion that Metallica is all about the benjamins.

Yes, sharing somebody's music is a theft. But why don't Maiden have problem with it? Go to any general warez forum, non-music and non-metal based, you'll surely run into couple of Maiden records linked to Rapidshare or whatever. Type "Iron Maiden" into any P2P program, you'll get 1000+ hits. The 'net is packed with pirated Maiden material. Why don't Eddie and the boys have a problem with that?

Because they care about their music, they care about their fans, and as long as the attitude is there, they won't feel a loss on their record sales. Ask true Metallica fans, how many of them really bought St. Anger, and ask real Maiden fans, how many of them really bought A Matter Of Life And Death. Then you'll see a difference.

Regarding MP3 sharing, it's really a weird issue. It can help you a lot, it can kill you completely. Funny that this issue was brought, because i've been discussing it lately in great detail. You see, we have a certain project going on here, and we're probably going to sign for a certain company that's EMI affiliate in Croatia. So we've discussed an issue about releasing music for free, etc. You see, i think it's a good move because it can help a lot in terms of "propaganda". However, we can demand such a thing, for the record company to permit legal MP3 download of our stuff. Because we're not a normal case. We have the means to prepare an album in full studio quality by ourselves, therefore the record company will receive a prototype CD that they'll just multiply and distribute throughout the shops.

The whole point is...you need to figure out the whole situation of your band vs. MP3, see if it can help you, see if it can harm you, or see if it can do you nothing. What Metallica got after they killed Napster. Nothing. They even made things worse. They initiated a series of decentralized protocol developments that just can't be killed. Can you shut down torrents? No, you can't. Can you shut down DC++ hubs? No you can't. Napster's only "flaw" was the centralization. The mother company was bonded with the central server, and that server had information of all shares. Can you sue Neo Modus because somebody's has a warez-full DC++ hub? Nope. Neo Modus just developed a protocol. They don't care what people do with that protocol. If you install a Direct Connect hub software on your server and host a warez hub, it's you breaking the laws, not Neo Modus.

Therefore, can MP3s help Maiden's record sales? Probably not. Can MP3s harm Maiden's record sales? No, they can't. That's why they don't do anything about it. MP3's never harmed Metallica's record sales, yet they went into holy crusade.

I say, if i were an artist that makes little money and barely manages to survive with low record sales, and i saw a direct-download MP3s of my stuff somewhere, i'd report that person/server/service/whatever. If i have a lot of money and millions of record sales, and i saw that same thing, i wouldn't give a f*ck. Metallica shouldn't give a f*ck. Do you think that Maiden guys never ran into such a thing? Especially Bruce, who is well educated on computers and spends a fair amount of time on the web. Don't you think he saw piratized Maiden stuff on the 'net, and what you think he did?

And yeah, i heard that Metallica wants to make a '80s style record. That's doomed to fail. Again, with the rise of metal in recent years, they want to jump on the bandwagon. Yet they fail to see one simple thing. Maiden are the kings of the metal world after 30 years because they wanted to make Brave New World, Dance Of Death and A Matter Of Life And Death, not because they wanted to make another Powerslave, Somewhere In Time, or Seventh Son.
 
Zare said:
And Perun, you're wrong. The Napster hype was going for two years (at least) when they encountered legal issues. Everyone knew about Napster a while before that. Your neighbour's grandma knew about Napster.

Bullshit.

According to Wikipedia - and this agrees with what I personally remember - "Shawn Fanning along with two friends he'd met online, Jordan Ritter, a fellow Bostonian, and Sean Parker, from Virginia, first released the original Napster in June of 1999." (source)

The Metallica lawsuit was filed in April, 2000. (source) That's ten months, not two years.

Oh, but you didn't say Metallica, you said "when they encountered legal issues". OK...

The RIAA first sued Napster in December 1999. (source) That's six months, not two years.

And at the time of those lawsuits, Napster was not well-known. College students and techies knew about it, and their neighbor's grandmas did not. It was the lawsuits which brought it to public attention and made it more popular. At the time of the Metallica lawsuit, Napster had only about 10% of the number of users it would have at its peak. (source)

Stop posting bullshit, Zare. This stuff isn't that hard to look up.
 
And it's not nice to call somebody's post bullshit without any reasoning.

Napster was working without any problems in 2001. I can't say for sure when the service degraded, but it was fully operational in 2001. 1999 to 2001 equals two years.

I don't care when the lawsuit was filed. I was pointing out the year when it was "closed" due to legal issues. It was operational for at least two years.

After a failed appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court, an injunction was issued on March 5, 2001 ordering Napster to prevent the trading of copyrighted music on its network.[12] In July 2001, Napster shut down its entire network in order to comply with the injunction. On September 24, 2001, the case was partially settled.

You're missing the fact that recording industry knew about illegal sharing of music via MP3 formats years before Napster was even born.
 
Now here's a discussion somebody is taking a wee bit too seriously.
 
Yeah, it's their right. Their right to sell out. They choose the most commercially viable path, they compromised their music and image several times to fit the global rock trends. That's the definiton of "selling out".

Now here's a discussion somebody is taking a wee bit too seriously.

Not me. I just don't like when somebody is calling my post a bolded bullshit.
 
I don't care if you sue me for $100 billion, as long as i won the lawsuit, i didn't have major problems (such as having to close my company) due to legal issues.
 
Apparently, you know some lawyers who work for free.

A few years ago, I was working for a company that got sued for $10 million. They won the suit, but it cost them $1 million in legal fees to do it. Now this was a large enough company that they could just barely afford that, and of course they prefer losing 1 million to losing 10 million, but the owners were still pissed off at it.

They were a small company sued by a much larger competitor. Despite their small size, they had a fairly good market share. The competitor was owned by a massive conglomerate that could afford millions in legal fees. Their goal was not necessarily to win - it was to put the small company in financial trouble just by fighting the case. They succeeded in that goal. Lawsuits aren't always about winning.

Now imagine you're the inventor of Napster in 1999, and the RIAA sues you. You're a college student; you can't afford the lawyers to fight the RIAA. Whether you win or lose isn't the point anymore. The lawyer's fees alone will destroy you. I don't know how the guy did it - maybe he got a pro bono lawyer.

Being sued definitely counts as legal trouble. I know - I've been sued. I won, but only because my co-defendant was a company with a lawyer that won it for me. If I had been sued alone, I'd have been broken in half by it.
 
You are probably right, i'm saying probably because i don't know U.S. law in that detail.

Here, if you sue me, and you lose the case, you're going to pay my lawyer. Not exactly in that direction, i'm going to pay him first, then you'll pay for courthouse expenses and for my defense expenses. Therefore, if i win, i'm on zero balance afterwards. It somewhat defends "small" from those "big". For instance, someone can sue me, with a very remote case, that they'll surely lose if i come up with a good attorney. But they can frighten me like - if you plan to win, you'll have to go to severe debt to pay your lawyer, we lost, but it's nothing worth for our multimillion corporation. Let's settle this off court - and then you have to compromise just so they'll leave you alone.

From your words and experience, it looks like, in U.S., that an ordinary man is in great trouble when someone big pushes him to court, no matter if he is going to win or not. That seems quite unfair. And from that point of view, seems like Napster was in big trouble in the moment when RIAA filed the first lawsuit.

So i stand corrected, because i looked from the viewpoint of our domestic laws.
 
It's the same in Norway, Zare. If you sue someone and lose, you get the whole bill. So the suer actually is taking the risk. If you sue someone and win, you would normally still pay your own expenses, but in some cases the counterpart might have to. I don't know the details here.

Also, if a private person (as opposed to a company) is sued, and he/she is financially troubled, he/she may get the lawyer expenses covered by the state. This is in order to make sure everyone can afford a qualified lawyer. So the worst situation you can be in, is the following:

- You have a serious disagreement with someone, and you have to take it to court because your counterpart is a stubborn bastard
- You are not rich (so money is in fact an issue for you)
- You are not poor (had you been poor, you could've applied for coverage from the state)

If you are the average Mr. John Smith with an average income, 1.8 kids and been married 1.5 times, starting a lawsuit could simply be too expensive.


Anyway: Again we see that the small but important differences between the USA and European countries lead to misunderstandings. The good thing is that one can learn from it.
 
Eddies Wingman said:
If you sue someone and lose, you get the whole bill.

That generally happens in the US, but it's not guaranteed. If you are getting sued and you want to be safe, you have to file a countersuit to claim damages (i.e. legal fees) if you win. If you don't file the countersuit, the judge is not required to make the loser pay your legal fees. The judge often will, but it's never guaranteed.


Eddies Wingman said:
Also, if a private person (as opposed to a company) is sued, and he/she is financially troubled, he/she may get the lawyer expenses covered by the state. This is in order to make sure everyone can afford a qualified lawyer.

That only happens in the US for criminal cases. For lawsuits - civil cases - you have to get your own lawyer.
 
It looks like things are the same in Europe and the US after all. The only misunderstanding we've had here is that people did not know to distinguish between a civil and a criminal case. Naturally, it's the criminal cases -where you automatically get a lawyer- that get all the attention, so people will think that's the way all cases are dealt with. But lawsuits are your own responsibility here too, you have to get your own lawyer.
 
That is true. But if you are sued in a civil case, you might also get expenses covered under special circumstances (I think). Special circumstances could, for instance, be that your income is under a certain limit.

PS: This thread should perhaps be moved to General Discussion? It seems we are talking more about lawsuits than who's the better band ...
 
And for those with no hope for the next Metallica album, you should have a great deal of hope. They have reportedly gone back to making music in the style of their 80s albums, largely at the insistence of Rick Rubin. I read a quote from Lars recently, to the effect of: "Whenever we don't know what to do next, Rick tells us to ask ourselves: 'What we would have done here in 1985?' ". And if they're really thinking that way, that's a great sign.

This is exactly why I don't hold out (I won't say any) but very little hope for the next album. They can't figure out how to write great music themselves anymore? They knew how to do it for at least 6 years but now they need Rick Rubin to remind them to party like it's 1985? I don't think so. If they really need to be TOLD to think that way, that's a terrible sign. I think Zare is right in this regard, after AJFA, they tried to ride the global wave of popular music style and always had their surfboards smack them in their faces for showing up too late and with inferior music at that.

Of course, like I said said, I do have a small amount of hope. I will listen to the album with an open mind. I will not buy it right away, I bought St. Anger, got in my car and started driving, halfway through the 3rd song, I ejected the CD, put it back in it's case and threw it out the window. I felt guilty for that because I had littered, it was actually worth the $15 to commit the actual act.

Anyway, I voted for Maiden.  :)
 
Back
Top