If Metallica were poor and had to rely on their music for their next meal I would look at the issue differently. The thing that gets me is that they Have made Millions and Millions all because of you the fan! So Why not give back to the very people who put helped get them where they are. They have said themselves many times that they can do anything they want money is not an issue. So why make it one just because of Napster. I think this is the problem with music today. People are creating music for money and in turn we loose our value in what music really is and what it can do for others. If more people made music for #1-themselves and also to share with others with out profit becoming #1 Priority, things like this would not come about. The way Metallica went about it was pretty harsh. They do have that right. But the very people they went after are the very people that helped them live in nice houses, drive nice cars, and have food on the table with plenty of Money left over (millions!) Is it so hard to step out side of the copyright law and give back to others?

I agree that music has more than artistic value and helps and heals in many ways, but not everything in life is free. What people create for a living makes them enough money to be comfortable, and now you wish them to hand it out for free? Luthiers consider guitars works of art, anyone here ever get a free Benedetto? Most likely not. We're not smurfs, we do have exchange of currency and while you have every right to enjoy music, they have every right to enjoy money.

I think you all are missing the point here. It's not the money, it's a control thing. Who gave Napster the right to allow any artists on there without permission? This is all Lars was really saying in an interview I just saw on TV.

Take me for example, I have a Cd out and already it's on Napster! I'm trying to make a decent living, and my style of music isn't the "in' thing right now. Is that fair to me? All my work and time to have someone get my product for free? Wake up people, this is unfair to every musician in the industry!!!!!!!

If you have my say so, by all means it's fine. But nobody has the right to give out an album for free....NOBODY!!!! Let's see how any of you feel if you put out an album and this happens to you. You look at Metallica as having enough money to absorb things...this may be true but is it fair that nobody asked for their consent to any of this? Here is a band that will allow you to record them and do what you want at their shows.....because they allow it! I can't believe that any of you would turn your back on a band for speaking up for what they believe in. You know what you will eventually see......the end of the music industry because why buy when you can get things for free. The artists will fall by the wayside, and the labels will perish. Sure they all have enough money, but when this goes on for a while, it will definitely be the end to the bands you all know and love.

This really saddens me that people get hissy because someone is fighting for what they worked so hard for. Enough money or not, it's stealing people and it's against the law. One day you'll have your album out there like I have mine, and you'll be hoping you get an income from your hard work.....then you'll see some a------ posted your entire album on Napster and you'll eventually be looking for a new line of work.

Danny Danzi
http://www.dannydanzi.com

Here, here! (or is that Hear, Hear...)

Here hear...whatever the case may be, I'm with ya on this one. :-)

Danny Danzi
http://www.dannydanzi.com

Dude, the chances of that happening are like 1 in a million.
Plus, if people downloaded my music, id be happy as hell!!! Id just make money from touring and record sales.

I'm not going to be the one to second guess Danny on this one. I'm not the one that had to go through it. I'd like to think I could give it away and still make a living, but I'm not going to tell someone like danny that if he can't [make a living] that's to bad, cause we're giving the music away anyhow. When you put it that way, it puts a different slant on the discussion. Because whatever trend starts here will soon be the norm. Where Metallica goes, so goes the industry.

You can make a few argument the either way, but frankly I'm not a signed musician dealing with it. And i'm not an economist with experience studing market problem like this. So I really don't know what any of us can say about the matter without being subjective.

You're so right Luke! It just plain sucks man! I just can't believe people would look down on an artist no matter how much money they have for believing in the law. I can't really say anything more on this other than when you get to where I am, which ins't too far, you savor everything you can. If my album sales drop drastically because of something like this, what happens then? I'm signed to an indy label with some good bucks behind me, but what if I wanted to jump ship and was approached by Atlantic......I tell them my first album sold 60,000 with no airplay, they'll probably bite on that and be pleased.....then I tell them my second album sold 25,000 and they ask why......I say...."Napster."

Danny Danzi
http://www.dannydanzi.com

The people who are losing money on record sales are NOT the people who are struggling to pay the bills. The bands getting downloaded are the bands like mettalica and offspring (btw offspring did say as somebody mentioned that despite being the most downloaded band on the internet people were still buying their stuff like crazy,) not small bands who can't pay the bills cause u know what? Small bands who can't pay the bills don't usually have records out, and if they do, not enough people own them for enough people to have them on their hard drives to download them. People seem to forget that for an album to be widely downloaded on napster, it has to be widely owned first. This stuff doesn't come from nowhere, it comes from people who buy the album and then put it on their hard drives. Not everybody (in fact a small minority) of people will immediately put an album on their hard drive when they buy it. CD is usually good enough. For these reasons, you're only going to lose significant money on record sales due to napster if you've already sold a multiplatinum album.
That's the economic perspective. However, it is true that metallica is getting the short end of the stick. Sure, they're losing control over something they should be able to have rights to. However, nobody tries to stop you from borrowing your friend's cd and making a tape. Or taping off the radio. This is only a more efficient way of doing the same thing. While I see metallica's point of view, I think that their response-to attempt to shut down napster entirely, and first to attempt to permanently (haha, already beat the ban)ban over 300,000 users-is rash and overreactive. For one thing, it's not helpnig them, the users they banned will not buy any more metallica i think, they've just isolated hundreds of thousands of music fans. Also, i just don't have that much sympathy. Metallica is NOT struggling to pay the bills. They could live comfortably without making another cent in their lives by just putting their money in the bank and living on interest. Even without that, whenever they release new albums, they will sell well despite napster, because of the reasons i mentioned above. Also, they can make tons of money touring. Granted according to capitalism (and our legal code) it is unfair to take their money just because they don't need it, in this certain case, I just can't feel sympathy, they are doing fine money wise despite napster, they can still make their music (shouldn't that be what they care about?) and they are in a good situation. Attacking an organization that has the capability of giving exposure to small bands is definitely not the way to go.

Daniel,

Very good points man, but all I'm asking for is some sort of control....not a banning of Napster. As I said, I'm just a lil guy with not many album sales, and my CD is already on there. It's crucial for guys like me to try and make an impact when just starting out, and I just think this could be a problem in the future. I mean hell, I've sold most of my CD's because of the net and some real audio files to wet the whistles of those interested, but full quality downloads of any artist just ain't right to me. It's like yeah man, people can burn CDR's and make tapes, but that's done behind closed doors and it's still illegal...this throws it in your face and says yeah man, download this CD here for free....or, what is to stop someone for charging a small fee in the future? Though you have valid points, I still think it's unfair. Like a gun is legal to have, but you can't shoot anyone...there has to be a few guidelines is all I'm saying here.

Danny Danzi
http://www.dannydanzi.com

I think if they charged you a small fee for the song to download it would be more accepted by the artist, but all it is really is like someone loaning you a cd and letting you tape a few songs, the songs are not exactly like cd quality, banning napster is like banning tape recorders, nobody is making money off it, if people were creating cd's from Napster and selling them then that would be another issue but that is not Napster's fault, without the fan there wouldn't be any Metallica, if the public felt like it they could take away Metallica's success, unlikely but not impossible, if nobody bought their records they wouldn't be anyone, they should feel lucky that anyone thinks there music is worth the hard drive space it is getting.

Eric,

Also very good points! And in my case, I wouldn't want any money from it. Hell I'd even give up a good song to showcase myself for free, but not an entire albums worth, you know? I don't think Napster should be banned, but again, I think there should be some sort of control. I don't agree with the extent of what Metallica is doing, but they do have a few valid points which we all seemed to have covered. At this point I guess you just throw up your hands and say "power to the people" and hope for the best if you are an artist. I don't know.....time will tell. ;-0

Danny Danzi
http://www.dannydanzi.com

Mike,

Do you really think it's one in a million? Do you really think you'll make enough touring and selling records? Very wrong guy...very wrong! You have to try to understand where this is going. At least on my part. I'm no where near as big as Metallica, nor will I probably ever be. But, that doesn't give anyone the right to my hard earned work for free!

When you get on a national level, the dollars get bigger and bigger. I'm a lil guy that sold 17,000 in Japan, 25,000 in Europe, and just hit 10,000 in the US with no US airplay. Those numbers are not staggering at all, and though it's definitely something to be proud of on my part, those numbers are not big enough. What happens when I lil guy like me has to deal with this? Is it fair? I'm hanging by the skin of my teeth dude! Do you know anything about touring and how much it costs? Touring doesn't pay you s---...it gets you out there to sell records! Yes it pays well when you are well known, but the real reason for it is to sell records! Napster will definitely hurt album sales if you can get an artists work for free. And if Napster really takes off, don't you think your idea of making money on album sales will diminish as well? I think so!

I'm not copping an attitude with you at all, so don't take me that way. All I'm saying here as it should be controlled. That's all. Consent from an artist that wants to be on Napster. Why is this so wrong? As Larrs put it, "Mp3's are not direct album quality masters, so we don't b---- about them. What we b---- about is an album quality mastered song, and it's illegal....cut and dry."

We can all debate about this until we're blue in the face. The fact remains that if you're not a signed artist with all the bulls--- that goes on with it, have a possibility to lose money on your hard work, you don't have a say in this. When you see your money lessening due to this piece of s--- program, and you lose your deal, then maybe you'll see the light. Just think about the lil guys like me that may not see the light of day because of this. Whether you like my music or not, 40,000 people seem to and that's not too bad. If it falls below that, there can be problems and who perishes? We do while people get our product for free.....totally un-cool and unacceptable in my humble opinion, but as you have yours, I have mine so it's a done deal.

Danny Danzi
http://www.dannydanzi.com

http://www.multiman.com/selloutica


heres a way back in, for all of you ex-napster users. give 'em hell, boys > :)

I agree 100% with ya Danny.. and as for anyone that says napster isn't making money off of the files... Where exactly did they come up with 1.5 million dollars to fund a tour this year? Sponsors for their site? Even if the site operators aren't taking any for themselves, in essence they made money off of someone else's work without their permission. If they charge a fee for it it will even be worse, unless they start a system where they pay the artist per download of their song, in essense filling the copywright. I don't know of the numbers of downloads, it could be so staggering as to be unreasonable course of action, but getting permission would be a place to start.

Hi Danny
I agree with you on this as with the others. Small sound byte samples are one thing but to make available a whole song let alone an entire cd is not right. Whether anyone wants to admit it or not it IS getting something for free that you normally would have to pay for and I think in anyone's definition that is stealing
Chet

Amen, Brother!!! What I don't understand is this. Why is it that when a band "makes it big" everybody starts to hate them. Or when they deviate slightly from what everyone liked on their last album they suddenly stink. In the very beginning Metallica struggled and fought and failed just like everyone else, but now they're suddenly the ashholes. In most people in the industry's opinion--- and most everyone elses, also NO ONE commands more prescence in their musical genre than Metallica, THEY ROCK. This guy's just p---ed because he can't get something he wants for free. His one sided opinion and his temerity in posting such a question reek of what's wrong with today's generation---Just because I want it I should automatically have it, It's my right.

Hi Chris,

I may be able to elaborate a bit on that. It seems when a band finally gets accepted by a large amount of people, those people are the ones that made them what they are. The people don't like drastic changes, and bands that usually try to re-define the face of music after a few successful albums, fall by the wayside.

This seems to be true with just about every band in existence. You're liked for a certain sound, and people want to continue to hear that sound for a while. But after a few albums of the same caliber, the band grows and matures in their songwriting. They'll lose some fans, but will gain others. It all depends on how drastic the change-over is.

In Metallica's case, I think their change was for the better as far as survival goes. Though I'm not and never was a fan of theirs, I really appreciate them for what they were, and what they are now. They paid their dues, and sold quite allot of records in the past especially when there wasn't radio airplay. So that to me in itself is reason to at least appreciate a band even if they aren't my thing.

People will call them sell-outs and that is what bothers me the most. Why I wonder? Because they wanted to make a few more dollars and appeal to a wider audience? That's not selling out to me, that is business......but only if it is the way you wish to go. Yes there are bands that sold out for the sake of selling out, but again...isn't that their perogative? To me, if you are maturing and all of a sudden you seem to be writing more hit like commercially acceptable material, that is fantastic and it shows growth. Any hard working serious professional mucian will admit to that.

Van Halen....one of my all time favorite bands for example. All the older stuff was more attitude, more guitar playing and a cool party vibe. What happens when you put out 6 albums of that stuff? You start to mature a little and think differently. You try and test the waters a bit. I loved VH with Roth, but the bottom line in my humble opinion is the songwriting improved drastically when Hagar joined the band. Ok Eddie wasn't as innovative and didn't play like the maniac he once was, but you get to a certain point of your career and you grow....sometimes you change.

Writing a song with an awesome hook is something that is an artform all in its own. People call it sellout, but then again...most of them that say that are musicians, and if you cater to them, you usually don't sell as many records. If it sounds good, it is good, there are no rules in rock n roll. And if you can write hit material, your not selling out unless you are record company manufactured. Hit material and orchestration takes as much time and creativity as progressive off the wall stuff. In the long run with music today, the answer is survival and you do what you gotta do to put food on the table. Take care.

Danny Danzi
http://www.dannydanzi.com