Clone DVD - Excellent DVD to DVDr tool



Metallica Now Embraces File-Sharing?

posted by soulxtc in file sharing // 15 days 13 hours 21 minutes ago

New interview says that they've been "observing Radiohead and Trent Reznor," and that for its next album fans can expect "everything in terms of possibilities with the Internet."


It was back in 2000 that Metallica discovered a demo of its song "I Disappear," which was supposed to be released in combination with the Mission: Impossible II soundtrack, was receiving radio airplay. Tracing the source of the leak, the band found that the song was available on Napster, the long defunct P2P network. It also found that the band's entire catalogue was available as well. It was soon thereafter that it sued Napster for copyright infringement and became on of the most vocal critics of file-sharing.


The lawsuit was settled in 2001, and under terms of the settlement, Napster agreed to identify and block access to files that artists do not want shared.


It was their case against Napster that really made Metallica the face of file-sharing critics and really incensed a lot of people who couldn't understand how a band that had already made millions was concerned with making millions more.


In any event, they seem to have come full circle these days with news that its fight was "never about downloading per se," and that it has been closely "...observing Radiohead and Trent Reznor."


Say what?


Perhaps sensing that the ubiquitous record store is a thing of the past, even conducting the interview with Rolling Stone at a "Record Store Day," an event designed to celebrate physical music retailers, in northern California, it has even decided to make digital music for sale.


From the interview:



RS: You were one of the first artists to sue over copyright infringement and voice concerns over aspects of downloading. Eight years later, with bands like Radiohead embracing the Net and yet charting, how has your stance changed, if at all?


M: We have FLACs and MP3s for sale. It was never about downloading per se. We have the Vault where you can download shows from twenty years ago for free, full-on and it's been there for years. You can download recent shows days after they happen for cost. Back in the day there was a much bigger question about "on whose terms?" We said, "Wait a minute, it should be about the artist." Then all hell broke loose and we sat on the sidelines for a while. We've always been fiercely independent and controlling; sometimes to a fault. That's why we exist and why all these people show up.


RS: Like a 360 deal with Live Nation?


M: Mmm, we've never sold ourselves that way. No disrespect. We want to be as free a players as possible. We've been observing Radiohead and Trent Reznor and in twenty-seven years or however long it takes for the next record, we'll be looking forward to everything in terms of possibilities with the Internet.



Metallica then goes on to stress its "independence" by noting that its latest album, due later this year and whose name I can't seem to find, is the last it has under contract with Warner Records. After this it will be "... looking at how we can embrace everything."


"We want to be as free a players as possible," they continue in the interview."We've been observing Radiohead and Trent Reznor and in twenty-seven years or however long it takes for the next record, we'll be looking forward to everything in terms of possibilities with the Internet."


So does this mean it now embraces file-sharing? It could be, and it could be that maybe, just maybe it was "...never about downloading per se" in the first place. I think what the honest truth is is that finally it realizes that CDs and cassettes are a thing of the past and that digital music is the format of the future.


The real question for them is then how do you distribute and make money from it? With record companies and retailers like Apple taking a lion's share of the profits it's only natural to conclude that a business model like Radiohead's or Trent Reznor's is the way to go. I mean if you're only making 10 cents on the dollar for each track or album sold then couldn't you just as easily charge fans 10 cents per track or 1 dollar for an album and still come out ahead? It's not rocket science to make a profit here.


Either way, welcome back Metallica it's been far too long, and I'm posting the video for "One" as a tribute.



Recent News
Privacy Commissioner Requested to Investigate Bell Canada Over Filtering
Take a Picture of Yourself, Help Protest Restrictive Copyright Reform
French RIAA Announces Deadline to Ban File-Sharers from the Internet
QuickSilverScreen Accused of Copyright Infringement, Temporarily Shutdown
Canada Gets More Copyright Consultations
LA County to Hold Property Owners Responsible for Piracy
Fake MP3s Running Rampant on Limewire, eDonkey

Recent Guides
How to Use DVD Shrink
How To Download From UseNet For Free Using NZB Files Via ISP
What is BitTorrent? A Beginner's Guide
Be an Internet DJ in 5 Easy Steps
Copy Music and Movies From Any iPod to Your Computer


  • #1    What hypocrites!! They were just as blind as the record companies and now, with their tail between their legs they come to the internet table looking for a piece of the pie that they originally fought hard against.

    Unbelievable!

    I for one, would completely boycott these morons!
    posted by Axerage 15 days 9 hours 58 minutes ago
  • #2    oh man, now this ruins Weird Al's song "Don't Download This Song"

    One of my favorite lines is "even Lars Ulrich knows it's wrong"

    It just won't be the same knowing that its not how he feels anymore.
    posted by Signa 15 days 9 hours 52 minutes ago
  • #3    WTF, I still won't buy their music.
    posted by TESHIRO 15 days 1 hour 40 minutes ago
  • #4    You have to admit, if you had the paycheck they're used you, you'd want to keep it... But maybe I have that perspective because I haven't lost money in 10 years, and because I was probably listening to Metallica when you were in diapers LOL...
    posted by methodz 15 days 57 minutes ago
  • #5    I don't know. They've really damaged their image. It's going to take a lot to get back onside with the public. They would be better off, just admitting they were stupid and wrong and want to make a fresh start with their fans. Even then, I think it's going to be hard for them.
    posted by Spurge 15 days 33 minutes ago
  • #6    Someone should sue Metallica for releasing songs on the Internet.......they can Bite Me
    posted by lion7718 15 days 15 minutes ago
  • #7    Metallica haven't been musically relevant for a very long time. Their last few releases weren't even worth a free download.
    posted by Tic3 14 days 15 hours 12 minutes ago
  • #8    The main thing is that they changed.

    If you like their music no matter what they say or do you should still like the music.

    Today i still listen to Metallica last CD and I still like it.
    posted by muffenme 14 days 14 hours 58 minutes ago
  • #9    You still listen to Metallica last what?

    Metallica has educated their fans not to download music and turned away those who do.

    The comeuppance is now. muffenme won't be downloading the next product from the web site. muffenme will be waiting for the release at a store that sells round shiny discs. Metallica will make less money and get less promotion and will become even more irrelevant.
    posted by Undertoad 14 days 14 hours 10 minutes ago
  • #10    metallica used to be one of my fav bands...old plates i still lissen to anyday..but when this whole file sharing thing started...well hey can't blame them if they thought that without the CD sales they wouldn't have champagne filled swimming pool...but the way they are making it sound its like as if they supported file sharing from the word go...that is some gaytallica shit...i remember their vehement opposition against file sharing and stuff...but i guess they have (the cool dude) trent reznor to change their minds about it....lets see how well they can change the minds of their fans...cause i know so many people that are well pissed of...
    posted by pandoraenima1 14 days 8 hours 24 minutes ago
  • #11    ha ha Metallica can bit my fat hairy sack.
    posted by mephitic 14 days 8 hours 22 minutes ago
  • #12    From the bottom of my heart...

    F*CK Metallica.
    posted by mercury049 13 days 10 hours 9 minutes ago
  • #13    Sounds like desperation to me. They haven't done anything worth a shit in quite some time. I think it is a little late to try damage control now.
    posted by Drugshovel 11 days 14 hours 4 minutes ago
  • #14    They have further embraced the idea that they are still significant.

    Seriously, I recall them suing a wheel company because they named a model "The Metallica". I consider that to be sort of disheartening, but at the same time, I never really cared about their penchant for lawsuit abuse and douchebaggery. If the music was there.

    The music hasn't been there for a LOOOOOOONG time.
    posted by zweites 11 days 12 hours 29 minutes ago
  • #15    I am glad that Metallica is going digital download for their future albums. That is just one less player in the Record Industry's hands.

    I for one will not be downloading their music. In my opinion, they started to suck once they released Load or Reload, or whatever the name of that poor album was.

    As for their change of mind on their views of digital downloads, I think they already did their damage and probably wont be getting a lot of support from digital downloaders. Their music may catch on again, but doubtful.
    posted by MaryJayne2769 11 days 11 hours 32 minutes ago

Login to ZeroPaid.com
Username
Password

* Be sure that you have cookies enabled in your browser, without them you will not be able to login correctly.

Register here if you are not a member of Zeropaid.com.

members that voted for this story
© 2000 - 2008 Zeropaid Inc, All rights reserved.
Company Info | Contact Us | Zeropaid Crew | Advertise
Hosting Provided by:
San Diego Colocation - Complex Drive