Drama in Lars Ulrich's AMA when users think nothing else matters but his napster lawsuit, is he still the unforgiven? (np.reddit.com)
SubredditDrama
106 ups - 31 downs = 75 votes
83 comments submitted at 00:22:19 on Jan 31, 2014 by lurker093287h
Drama in Lars Ulrich's AMA when users think nothing else matters but his napster lawsuit, is he still the unforgiven? (np.reddit.com)
SubredditDrama
106 ups - 31 downs = 75 votes
83 comments submitted at 00:22:19 on Jan 31, 2014 by lurker093287h
>I don't regret taking on Napster
Fuck you /u/RealLarsUlrich you piece of greedy shit.
>Is that why you requested over $10,000,000.00 in damages at a rate of $100,000.00 per downloaded song? If it was really about control, why wasn't the injunction enough?
lol ignore that comment
Why is it greedy that he wants people to pay for his music?
Because he explicitly states "it's not about the money". Try reading the linked thread.
I did.
>Try reading the linked thread.
Try not to be condescending.
I am arguing my point, not Lars' point. I don't find it greedy for Metallica to want fans to pay for their music. If you disagree, then you must believe Metallica is greedy for wanting fans to pay for their music. I simply don't see it that way.
If that's the point you're arguing you might try saying that the first time. Because that's not what you said the first time.
Do you honestly believe $100k per song is fair? You think that's acceptable? And not "greedy"? He's not asking for $15 an album or $.99 cents a track. He asked for one hundred thousand US dollars (and that's 90's dollars which are worth more than now.) Maybe someone will adjust it for inflation.
>If that's the point you're arguing you might try saying that the first time. Because that's not what you said the first time.
Sure.
>Do you honestly believe $100k per song is fair? You think that's acceptable? And not "greedy"? He's not asking for $15 an album or $.99 cents a track.
I think you have your facts a bit misconstrued. They were suing Napster for $10,000,000 for copyright infringement. It wasn't $100k per song because thousands of people were downloading the songs, not one person. Not one fan had to pay a dime for illegally downloading their copyrighted content.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metallicav.Napster,_Inc.
FUN FACT: Dr. Dre also sued the shit out of Napster for the same thing and that resulted in over 230k files being removed from Napster. It's weird how no one gives him shit about it.
If Dr. Dre had recorded St. Anger, I'm sure we would have different feelings about him.
I lolled at that. Using D instead of C, no solos, and every single drum piece used at once = St Anger.
FRAN TIC-TIC-TIC-TIC-TIC-TIC-TIC-TIC-TIC-TIC-TIC-TIC-TIC-TIC-TIC-TIC-TIC-TIC-TIC-TIC
Because Dre kicked a woman down the stairs. Suing napster is on the bottom of the "Things to be mad at Dre about" list.
It's not a Dr. Dre AMA.
Good answer.
It's a lawsuit, not a business transaction. If the fine for stealing a CD was just paying the asking price, that wouldn't be much of an incentive not to steal.
What does a fine have to do with anything? It's a civil suit.
Pedantic, thy name is wwyzzerdd
Ignorant thy name is 0xnull.
I fail to see how asking for damages makes it "all about the money"
If you want someone to stop doing something, you make it criminal, or massively expensive for them to do so. You ask for $10,000,000.00 because you know if that gets awarded, or even a fraction of it does, then napster immediately ceases to be a business and everyone attempting to be like napster immediately ceases to be a business.
I'm pretty sure people who pirate music also pay for music, maybe more than average.
He was already filthy rich at that point, why want even more? And it's not like a different approach to making music gives you less cash. Just look at Radiohead.
>He was already filthy rich at that point, why want even more?
It's not really about that. If a recording artist wants to be charitable and give away their music, it is their decision. Not that of people who decide they don't have to pay for something they want.
Except things are worth what people are willing to pay, not what you want to charge. That's the bottom line. Your overly-ideological world of entitled individuals is unrealistic. It's not your decision, that's the problem here. You all think you can just create whatever price you want for oil and it affects no one. It's naive, simplistic, greedy, and entitled by definition.
It's the main reason I hate baby-boomers. They can't see past their own fridge.
Sooo if your not willing to pay for it why take it?
The word 'pay' is not limited to monetary transactions. Work is equal to the product of Force and Distance. Maybe you just aren't understanding how low the value for the item really is.
Kind of like people who buy jeans with bleach stains already in them.
If that's to much for you, I must ask you why you took that apple from the tree when you could have paid 10.99$ for an apple at my store.
Nah I believe that there should be a ceiling in society to your amount of wealth, that should be a norm, not a rule. It's utterly disrespectful to people who have to struggle to eat a meal if your shit contains undigested gold from your supper for example.
>Nah I believe that there should be a ceiling in society to your amount of wealth, that should be a norm, not a rule.
Uh huh. And how would you enforce this? Furthermore, don't you think that's kind of a short-sighted way of thinking? I mean, think of all the good that the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is doing with the insane wealth that Bill Gates amassed.
Think of the Giving Pledge (which, by the by, was started by Gates as well). Just look at the people who've pledged to use their money for good. People like Bill Gates and Warren Buffett.
>It's utterly disrespectful to people who have to struggle to eat a meal if your shit contains undigested gold from your supper for example.
If people are able to capitalize on their idea(s) and they're not hurting anyone by doing so, why should they not be allowed to do that?
Furthermore, music to listen to is a damned privilege. You don't need music to survive. In fact, why don't you point to where in Maslow's hierarchy of needs you find "free music"?
>Uh huh. And how would you enforce this?
Oh, I don't know. Maybe by technological advancement...
That's why explicitly said it should be a norm, not so hard to read yo. Times are changing already anyway. Just look at the game Path of Exile. It's a viable way of doing business and there's nothing short-sighted about that.
You've done nothing to further your point.
please tell me you're a teenager. No one over 20 can think this is a positive.
Please tell me you're a baby-boomer. No one else can be so selfishly naive.
Ha, far from it. Sorry to disappoint. I'm just a dude who understands that the rising standard of living is driven mostly by innovation...which only happens on a large scale due to the profit motive. You start capping wealth and you are back to the pre corporate form world where we saw centuries with almost no improvement in standards of living...regardless of class.
>...which only happens on a large scale due to the profit motive.
And when you confuse that with monetary gain, you get the vast and annoying misunderstandings of the baby-boomer generation. Profit for the sake of innovation is vastly different from profit for profits sake, which is what you are condoning.
Your vision of an overly-exaggerated form of fiscal responsibility seems more like scare tactics than realistic conclusions and belongs more in an Orwell piece. You jumped straight from capping wealth to their being NO profit motive. That doesn't seem ridiculous to you? It should.
Profit is not solely profit that is put back into the business, innovation is a byproduct, not the goal. You can't pin your arguments on semantics, especially not those of your own choosing.
Your ridicule of the baby boomer generation is cute, but its misplaced given that I'm not one. It's also a huge generalization, which is a symptom of a weak argument.
Your Orwell reference is completely misplaced. Orwell argued against totalitarianism, which is what would be required to enforce the wealth cap you are defending.
And again, yes you cannot cap wealth without destroying the profit motive and any attempt to do so would be disastrous for continued economic growth.
With that I am headed to bed, us old folks have to get up early you know.
>I'm pretty sure people who pirate music also pay for music, maybe more than average.
I'm sure people who rob houses also pay for things too. I'm not discussing the merits of music piracy. I think most people on this site have pirated music at some point in their lives. I know I did but I was also a poor teenager at that time.
>He was already filthy rich at that point, why want even more?
Because he wants more? Are you saying that he shouldn't make anymore music because he already has enough money? I think his fans would disagree.
>He was already filthy rich at that point, why want even more? And it's not like a different approach to making music gives you less cash. Just look at Radiohead.
>And it's not like a different approach to making music gives you less cash. Just look at Radiohead.
Radiohead didn't make that decision 14 years ago, they made it in 2007 when that was available as a choice. During Napster's popularity, no major musicians were selling or giving their music away as downloadable MP3s because most people were still using 56k modems.
>I'm sure people who rob houses also pay for things too.
Piracy is copying, not theft.
http://imgur.com/dEsSeXr
You're right. I used a bad analogy. However, both are illegal. Piracy of copyrighted materials can harm the individual owners of the copyright and is relatable to theft of possible income.
Just FYI. Metallica sued Napster, not people who downloaded their songs. As far as I can tell, no one who downloads is EVER sued, except in the case of torrents, and only then because you are also an uploader because of the nature of torrents.
What Napster did, there was no specific law against. They indexed search records and let users see that index. That's all. They didn't share songs. They didn't download songs. They gave people who wanted to download songs a list of people willing to let them. I'm not saying you should or shouldn't agree with the legal decision, but at least understand what you're arguing for.
On a side note, Google does the same thing, and has done the same thing before, during, and after Napster. They index people who are willing to let you copy their files, and show you that index. They have not been sued for enabling piracy. If you believe the Napster ruling was an ethical one, do you feel that Google is getting away with a crime on a daily basis?
It's a fuzzy legal situation and I think people too easily take one side without understanding the big picture (I don't mean you specifically, just people talking about Metallica and Napster).
Yeah but burglars don't share their pirated music with others telling them how incredible that piece of furniture is. Good music spreads and becomes popular, people will buy more if it's more popular, piracy helps getting music out there. Metallica got popular by trading bootleg tapes and shit. It's exactly the same.
Dude should make music if he loves it. I'd rather listen to some honest recording than someone who's just playing his instrument for cash. Insert Bill Hicks quote about blowing your heads on stage.
Radiohead didn't sue their fans for a quick buck either.
>Dude should make music if he loves it.
That's like saying a doctor should only perform surgery because "he loves it". He has an incredibly rare skill that millions of people are willing to pay to enjoy. Why the everliving fuck shouldn't he want to make money off of it?
If you're good at something never do it for free.
Yeah that's why you dipshit people have to pay over 50k for a simple operation. It's probably free for me in my country.
I don't know why you're upvoted. All you needed to do was look up the definition of greedy and it's pretty easy to see how it fits...
Since you were too lazy;
Greed *noun \ˈgrēd*
Did Lars need to shut-down Napster? Absolutely not. He had a selfish desire to achieve more money in a completely ineffective way. I will trust I don't need to look up the definition of selfish for you...
>"But he needed to stop people sharing his music"
He NEEDED people to stop sharing his music? Oh boy, history lesson time. Metallica was renowned as one of the biggest bands to gain ALL of their popularity, by bootleg tapes. That's right kiddies. The band that shutdown Napster, only got famous because of people physically pirating their music. They literally owe ALL of their fame, to piracy.
That's just a little side lesson. Back to the main point;
He wanted people to stop sharing his music so he shut down Napster.... Ummmm ... so.... Did people stop sharing his music when Napster shut down? LOLOLOLOLOLOL
So not only were his actions; greedy, selfish, and entitled, they were also pointless.
I will leave you to ponder why people might dislike someone who greedily, selfishly, and pointlessly retards others.
You're fighting a losing battle around here. But good post none the less.
I know. It gets worse every year, but you gotta try. Just need to help one more person. One more.
Might be that the damages he sought are $99 999.00 over the sticker price...NAPSTER BAD
Metallica sued Napster for copyright infringement. Napster was allowing thousands of individuals to illegally download their copyrighted materials. Napster lost the lawsuit and had to remove the files. Other musicians followed suit and this lead to over 230k files being removed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metallicav.Napster,_Inc.
link
You need the "." if the end of Inc included to link properly.
Weird. Mine shows the "." at the end of "Inc"
lol. That's a cool story. I have a better one.
https://www.google.com/search?q=Metallica%20Discography%20.torrent
And clearly they were in the right because this piracy of music killed the music industry and it's profitability instead of changing nothing and making them a joke in this regard.
Actually, music piracy and this lawsuit changed the music industry a lot. Today we have Spotify, Pandora, etc and I believe most P2P sites are not in US jurisdiction from fear of being shut down or sued.
You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Really. Just everything you are saying is silly. The Metallica lawsuit only changed the website people went to (barely that since Napster was actually WAY past old news by then) and the number of fans Metallica had dropped substantially. Lars even had to try and do PR for the loss with his whole "every seat in the house comment"
The music industry trekked on as blindly as it still does today.