Comment Metallica's argument contradicts itself (Score 1) 627
All Metallica could talk about when questioned as to why they were striking at Napster, was that although they were not pleased to learn that people could obtain studio-quality copies of their music for free, they were launching their attack against Napster to represent "the artists who make music today and tomorrow and who want to continue making it the way we[Metallica] do without getting ripped off and undermined."
The image of Metallica being the "big brother" for all other bands is ridiculous. Metallica is not doing this for other people, they're doing it for the themselves and the money. Sure, they talk about how they've had free concerts in the past. But let's face it, the revenue that would be generated by these concerts if they were not free is hardly significant when compared to the yearly revenue of each member of the band. And it is definitely not comparable to the money they would gain/save if they could somehow manage to control all of the Metallica MP3s that have been obtained illegally through services such as Napster. I mean come on, if you were told that you could increase your income simply by ensuring that things you had made weren't pirated, wouldn't you try to make that happen?
But it isn't Metallica's aggresive money-earning policy that bothers me. Metallica has the amazing ability to keep grunting out incredible songs, and they are in their right to be payed very highly for it. People have repeatedly said in this posting that Metallica has been a big part of their lives. You definitely cannot say this about every band, but Metallica has actually earned everything they are asking for..
However...
Metallica claims to do this to support newer, younger bands so that a viable future can be secured for them. What newer bands? I'm sure Limp Bizkit truly appreciates Metallica's efforts.
I wonder what James, Lars, Jason and Kirk would have thought about Napster if they were a "newer" band like the ones they claim to protect in their internet chat. Many people, including Metallica I think, forget that they originally started out using a semi-legal method to distribute their music in order to get it heard in as many places as possible. No one can convince me that newer bands who don't have a label and/or money are going to skip over services like Napster because "Big Brother Metallica told me to". Obviously, Napster is the quickest and cheapest method to distribute music today. Think about it, a new band can post their songs, fire up Napster and people can download it. All it takes is for someone in the music industry to hear a tune by the band it and boom!...Metallica II. And I'm sure many newer artists consider it this way, and do not have the negative view represented by Metallica. And if this is such a good thing for younger bands, why haven't any spoken up? So how is Metallica protecting artists of future generations, and if so, where's the proof? Simple...they aren't, and there isn't any. Metallica, like many people who have experienced great successes in their life, have let it go to their head, and are trying to earn as much money as they can by exploiting a viable service just because they can make a lot of money from it.
Again, everybody, it's not so much the greed that bothers me, it's the dishonesty that does. As shown above, Metallica isn't worried about all the other bands out there. So who's left? Themselves. But they mask this greed with cleverly rehearsed statements designed to make us and the rest of the general public feel guilty. For what? For connecting to a service that allows us to not only hear our favourite Metallica tunes, but songs from other bands that we enjoy as well as thousands of up-and-comers that we wouldn't normally hear on the radio or see on MTV?
This strategy of appealing to the common person's sense of guilt is a classic P.R. strategy. People will feel guilty for doing something that's morally wrong, in this case, they're calling the action of downloading MP3s from Napster stealing. Bill Clinton employed a similar strategy in getting the public to side with him in the Monica Lewinsky affair. He was able to get the average person to actually feel sympathy for him in his position.
Metallica if you would just confess your true intent, I would be satisfied. You used to have the courage to stick up for what you believe in, even if it wasn't what society considered "right". So why won't you do it now? You certainly would show some "integrity" that you claim to have in your interview.
The answer to that is because now, it's preventing them from making more money. They'll be forced to live the life of petty, sniveling little millionaires instead of billionaires. I wish I had their problems.
The image of Metallica being the "big brother" for all other bands is ridiculous. Metallica is not doing this for other people, they're doing it for the themselves and the money. Sure, they talk about how they've had free concerts in the past. But let's face it, the revenue that would be generated by these concerts if they were not free is hardly significant when compared to the yearly revenue of each member of the band. And it is definitely not comparable to the money they would gain/save if they could somehow manage to control all of the Metallica MP3s that have been obtained illegally through services such as Napster. I mean come on, if you were told that you could increase your income simply by ensuring that things you had made weren't pirated, wouldn't you try to make that happen?
But it isn't Metallica's aggresive money-earning policy that bothers me. Metallica has the amazing ability to keep grunting out incredible songs, and they are in their right to be payed very highly for it. People have repeatedly said in this posting that Metallica has been a big part of their lives. You definitely cannot say this about every band, but Metallica has actually earned everything they are asking for..
However...
Metallica claims to do this to support newer, younger bands so that a viable future can be secured for them. What newer bands? I'm sure Limp Bizkit truly appreciates Metallica's efforts.
I wonder what James, Lars, Jason and Kirk would have thought about Napster if they were a "newer" band like the ones they claim to protect in their internet chat. Many people, including Metallica I think, forget that they originally started out using a semi-legal method to distribute their music in order to get it heard in as many places as possible. No one can convince me that newer bands who don't have a label and/or money are going to skip over services like Napster because "Big Brother Metallica told me to". Obviously, Napster is the quickest and cheapest method to distribute music today. Think about it, a new band can post their songs, fire up Napster and people can download it. All it takes is for someone in the music industry to hear a tune by the band it and boom!...Metallica II. And I'm sure many newer artists consider it this way, and do not have the negative view represented by Metallica. And if this is such a good thing for younger bands, why haven't any spoken up? So how is Metallica protecting artists of future generations, and if so, where's the proof? Simple...they aren't, and there isn't any. Metallica, like many people who have experienced great successes in their life, have let it go to their head, and are trying to earn as much money as they can by exploiting a viable service just because they can make a lot of money from it.
Again, everybody, it's not so much the greed that bothers me, it's the dishonesty that does. As shown above, Metallica isn't worried about all the other bands out there. So who's left? Themselves. But they mask this greed with cleverly rehearsed statements designed to make us and the rest of the general public feel guilty. For what? For connecting to a service that allows us to not only hear our favourite Metallica tunes, but songs from other bands that we enjoy as well as thousands of up-and-comers that we wouldn't normally hear on the radio or see on MTV?
This strategy of appealing to the common person's sense of guilt is a classic P.R. strategy. People will feel guilty for doing something that's morally wrong, in this case, they're calling the action of downloading MP3s from Napster stealing. Bill Clinton employed a similar strategy in getting the public to side with him in the Monica Lewinsky affair. He was able to get the average person to actually feel sympathy for him in his position.
Metallica if you would just confess your true intent, I would be satisfied. You used to have the courage to stick up for what you believe in, even if it wasn't what society considered "right". So why won't you do it now? You certainly would show some "integrity" that you claim to have in your interview.
The answer to that is because now, it's preventing them from making more money. They'll be forced to live the life of petty, sniveling little millionaires instead of billionaires. I wish I had their problems.
