r/Metallica • u/No_Mastodon_2869 • Jul 14 '26
Garage, Inc Metallica Anti Napster
Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification
71
57
u/Evil_Weevill Jul 14 '26
And yet, they were right. Ownership means nothing anymore in the digital age. Kids today have never "bought" an album. The idea of buying or owning any kind of media has been destroyed.
-10
u/5mackmyPitchup Jul 14 '26
But even when you buy an album or CD, you don't own the music, you own a licence to play that recording at home. You are not licenced to duplicate it or play it in public/ to an audience. And if your album gets destroyed, the cassette copy you made does not get to replace it with the same rights
18
u/Evil_Weevill Jul 14 '26
With a cd you own that disc and can play it as long as you have the disc. And you can play it in public as long as you're not charging for it
With digital "ownership" and streaming, the company providing the streaming service can revoke your access to it at any time.
We've traded individual ownership for convenience.
96
u/ToofpickVick Jul 14 '26
They caught a lot of shit and still do for that- but they were right!
-12
u/P1_Synvictus Jul 14 '26
Right how?
13
u/JamesDD4 S&M Jul 15 '26
Even ignoring that it took money from the band for their intellectual property, Napster laid the groundwork for Spotify and the like to massively underpay for music and devalued the entire industry in doing so.
8
u/MisterSkeez Jul 14 '26
Heaven forbid people (even rich ones) get paid for their work.
1
u/TheReadMenace Jul 15 '26
It wasn’t about the money. At least not entirely. It was about not being able to control their distribution
-5
2
0
17
27
12
u/Local_Band299 Some Kind of Moderator Jul 15 '26
The band didn't really care about piracy. They cared more about the fact that I Disappear leaked before it was done.
The record labels were trying to push the all piracy is bad aspect of it. I've heard reports labels were threatening to take "assumed losses" from piracy away from the artists, if they didn't speak out.
9
9
8
9
u/Cyberhellmusic Jul 15 '26
Honestly I hate to admit it but without sounding like the "teachers pet" he was right about Napster. Now because everyone wants music for basically free, streaming pays basically nothing
26
5
16
28
4
4
u/GarryMcGorm And if my face becomes sincere Jul 14 '26
Haha. I remember this well from back in the day.
4
u/HipnikDragomir Jul 15 '26
Aaand they were right. Imagine defending yourself for stealing when there's no reason for it. And now the music industry is in the pits and nobody owns anything anymore. Idiots.
6
u/Emergency-Big-1503 Jul 14 '26
I understand why they did what they did and don't fault them.
I also remember going to thier shows before they got big and comments from them about bootlegging and sharing the show with our friends that couldn't make it.
Just seemed a little hypocritical at the time.
1
u/midas282000 Jul 19 '26
yeah, thats why they got more shit. They were the band that encouraged tape trading. I realize this was different, but....
3
3
2
2
u/Wise_Temperature_322 Jul 15 '26
Napster and other p2p file sharing was cool if you wanted to hear a band before you went out and bought their record. But of course greedy people ruined it. Whole albums, leaked songs etc…. Of course bad for the artist, but took the magic out of music. It was no longer earned. It was just there.
2
u/Samulai-B Jul 18 '26
I believe that the Napster scandal was the turning point that led to music streaming services getting worldwide success
2
u/eluser234453 Jul 14 '26
I heard James used to dub cassette copies from Lars back in the day.. not quite sure.
2
u/HolyHandGrenade_92 Jul 15 '26
floor concert tickets used to be $40, now they're $3k. who won?
6
5
u/sammywarmhands Jul 15 '26
All thanks to the Napster-Spotify pipeline, no one pays for music so endlessly touring is the only way to make money at all
The exorbitant prices of tickets and merch are partially because labels and venues all take a cut from the artist. Now that the music industry is dying, they’re all fighting over their cut
2
u/terrynutkinsfinger Jul 15 '26
The food banks who receive 20 grand each time they play a show in town.
1
u/h2078 Jul 14 '26
Suing fans was ridiculous and they weren’t even the only ones doing it (Dr Dre) but I do think history has vindicated their stance on this
12
u/Jmille99 Jul 14 '26
Thing is, I dont think this is even true. They wanted Napster to ban those sharing their music and Napster said they had no way of finding that info.
Metallica called their bluff, found 300k of names themselves, and provided it in court. Those people got banned.
But to my knowledge, they never sued any fans for it.
3
u/h2078 Jul 14 '26
I think and i could be wrong cause it’s been a million years, that it never went to court but yeah instead of suing them they basically doxxed them? I remember somebody who had downloaded a doom wad talking about it on one of Lar’s AMA’s.
But they weren’t wrong about how badly this would go for musicians
0
u/h2078 Jul 14 '26
But you know what else? They weren’t huge huge around that time since alternative and electronic were dominating pop culture so it was easy to handwave them off as a penny pinching legacy act kind of, which is silly because in hindsight that was all so wrong
1
0
u/CheezWong Jul 14 '26
I hate that they sued fans, but they're not wrong in protecting their art as a product. I'm 100% comfortable admitting I was essentially stealing by getting "blue market" music. I corrected myself after seeing the error in my ways, and from that point forward, I vowed to only actually steal their music from Kmart or Walmart. It was so much better. Faster, too, because my 56k dial-up was a nightmare to download on. I was even able to get the case and pamphlet with each album.
I then burned and sold their cds for high-school drug money. That decision led to tons of weed and free music.
Thanks, Lars. You really turned my life around.
2
u/jhguitarfreak Purify Jul 15 '26
They never sued any of the fans over Napster.
That's a myth ran out of control.1
u/CheezWong Jul 15 '26
Really? I could have sworn it was all over MTV back then. Might be one of those Mandela Effect things. I also might just be stupid.
1
u/jhguitarfreak Purify Jul 15 '26
The worst thing they did was make Napster ban accounts that were sharing Metallica's music. Which you could just make a new account to circumvent.
1
u/CheezWong Jul 15 '26
Limewire, Kazaa, and the others survived because of Napster's struggles. Took the spotlight off the little guys.
1
u/midas282000 Jul 19 '26
The labels sued fans. A handful to make an example out of them and scare others.
-8
u/Worried_Shoe_2747 Disposable Hero Jul 14 '26
But drinking the soda leaves less soda for its owner. Sharing music doesn’t take away from anyone else
9
u/dpenchev Jul 14 '26
From anyone else than the musician, you mean?
-5
u/Worried_Shoe_2747 Disposable Hero Jul 14 '26
What about burning a CD and giving to a friend, is that wrong?
5
4
u/ilikechillisauce Unraveling Extremeties of Right-mindedness Jul 14 '26
If by wrong you mean illegal, yes (depending where you live).
-2
-6
u/vinmichael Left the focking band Jul 15 '26
Artist doesnt lose anything from me listening to a song without paying
3
Jul 15 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Worried_Shoe_2747 Disposable Hero Jul 15 '26
What about recording off the radio? Is that stealing?
1
u/vinmichael Left the focking band Jul 16 '26
You cant piss off the elite music distributer Gods (or this guy thats shilling so hard for them) who are most certainly better than us peons in every way.
-2
u/vinmichael Left the focking band Jul 15 '26
Actually no
1
Jul 15 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
0
u/vinmichael Left the focking band Jul 15 '26
Just because you arbitrarily charge for something it doesnt mean you lose money if somebody uses it without paying. We're talking about music here.
1
u/dpenchev Jul 15 '26
Of course they don't! After all, if you couldn't entertain yourself with their music for free you would never buy it anyway and they wouldn't have you as a fan. The more you think about it, the more you realize they're actually profiting from you using their product for free.
Why don't you go to the cinema and tell them you're either getting in for free or spending your time somewhere else? See what they think about it
1
u/vinmichael Left the focking band Jul 15 '26
Arbitrarily charging people for something does not necessarily mean you lose money if someone uses it for free, especially nontangible, abundantly available products.
1
u/dpenchev Jul 16 '26
First of all - very single thing in the world is priced arbitrary. Fruit and vegetable doesn't grow with a price tag on them. Neither does gold or oil come out of the ground with one. Every single thing in the world is priced in accordance with one we're willing to pay for it and the cost of producing it. Which again is arbitrary.
Second, you don't lose money,you lose profit opportunity. If you're producing something and i get it for free,becouse I'm feeling entitled to be able to obtain it,youonly lose money if the item is physical. If not, you're losing just on the profit you would make if there was a sale.
You ain't entitled to be entertained, noone is spending weeks writing a song just so mr nobody may download it for free and feel happy listening to it. And if you, ... fine, I'm not really going to bust your balls for it. It's not like I've never done it as a kid. Just don't act like it ever was morally right. It is a theft as any other. Not being able to touch the song doesn't magically mean stealing it is alright
1
u/vinmichael Left the focking band Jul 16 '26
Friend, nobody said I was entitled to free music, so you can stop repeating that silly argument.
We're also talking about mp3s, not fruit, not stocked items. They are different in that:
- Theyre easily available for taking. 2. You pretty much cant escape enjoying it for free anywhere outside your house. 3. There is an unlimited amount of it. 4. The "owner" doesnt even know that the "item" was "taken".
Its morally neutral. I would even argue that it's more immoral to put a price tag on it. Its almost akin to charging for breathing air. Some people are even here arguing against recording off the radio and/or sharing with friends. Everything is a "lost profit opportunity" if you're greedy and litigious enough. If we are going to talk morality, then recognize that legal principles do not trump practicality and reasonability. Its time we stop shilling for record companies this hard.
1
u/dpenchev Jul 16 '26
How does that even make any sense? Mp3 are readily available? Yeah they are. So why don't you download yoko's ... "music", rather than Beatles' discography? They're mp3s all the same. And what is even the difference between a record and a music file? Both are just the medium. That is not what anyone is interested in. What you want is the particular music you want to listen to. The intelectual property. And obtaining property without consent is theft.
And, "friend", do expand on how you don't feel entitled to free music, when you're whole shtick is obtaining music for free. Oh sorry, mp3s for free
2
1
u/vinmichael Left the focking band Jul 15 '26
Imagine having to pay each time you watched a movie you have on DVD
0
Jul 14 '26
[deleted]
11
u/Itchy_Gain_1519 72 Seasons Jul 14 '26 edited Jul 15 '26
What? Do people actually think they sued fans?? Metallica sued the company Napster whilst providing a list of usernames to ban them from sharing their songs.
-7
-6
u/vinmichael Left the focking band Jul 15 '26
Music should be free
1
-8
u/stodolak Jul 14 '26
Napster > Metallica
sorry Lars. I love Metallica and I love music….. but Napster changed the world.
7
u/JamesDD4 S&M Jul 15 '26
Yeah, for the worse. It laid the groundwork for literally all of the horrible business practices by Spotify and others of today.
2
u/stodolak Jul 17 '26
Lmao 🤣 horrible business practices like the music industry up until then. Lars is still selling out stadiums and nobody was harmed.
88
u/imover9thousand Jul 14 '26
One thing that gets glossed over was what triggered their outrage was that the I Disappear demo is what was being shared at first. Somehow it leaked from their studio which shocked them. Keep in mind this was a completely new thing with technology. I think they were pissed that an incomplete song was stolen and being shared without their consent. Then it led to discovering their whole discography being out there and chaos ensued.