Filmed at the 2024 Library of Congress Gershwin Prize for Popular Song concert honoring the legendary Elton John and Bernie Taupin at DAR Constitution Hall in Washington, D.C. on March 20, 2024.
Lol, Metallica, live… on PBS!
I can’t see or hear it through visions of their drum goblin molesting Cindy Crawford and the wails of all the ghosts of bankrupted Napster users.
Well, you’ve managed to remain salty about that long after the fans and the band got over that stuff.
Metallica didn’t sue their fans. The record comapanies had a crack at that, but Metallica only sued Napster.
I’ve never read an apology for them not stopping their attack dogs, or heard of them paying back their proportion of money to the ones worst affected. Ironic considering that their wealth was accumulated on the back of illegal price fixing.
You might not have a problem with people living luxury lifestyles on the back of illegal activity making people homeless of course.
Yeah, they were shitty about prople ripping their stuff off, although at the time it was more about having stuff they hadn’t released being spread, and then found their entire collectiong being shared by the guy who leaked their new recordings if I remember properly.
While the record comapanies were happy to have a face from a popular band to use, it was the record companies that were the driving force behing the litigation tactics, not Metallica, or most of the other bands, and they weren’t making their decisions based on what the bands thought.
Metallica didn’t take or get that money. They only went after Napster.
Such a big band wasn’t powerless and while I’ve read about them regretting that others didn’t join them on their quest, I’ve never read any regrets about the completely disproportionate penalties people paid for leaving their computers switched on. Paid them too since it’s unlikely Warner Music would have claimed on the basis of their ‘share = lost sale’ nonsense and not shared with the artist.
Bearing in mind that the price fixing meant that their income was based on an illegal racket and that the value of a ‘lost sale’ was based on that. If music buyers had launched a class action against them they could well have recouped enough to buy all those bankrupted people new houses.
I wonder how many committed suicide, had breakdowns or had kids growing up in unstable environments because of this hypocrisy? Out of sight, out of mind I suppose.
Yea, Metallica were some real cunts with the whole Napster thing. Not to mention that at that point in their careers none of them would ever have to worry about money again for the rest of their lives. And most of the people filesharing their albums were fans, not some assholes trying to rip off Metallica Inc. Filesharing was a new thing to the masses, and fans were just having fun sharing music that they enjoyed listening to. And at that point, Metallica Inc. sure had done a 180 toward their fans vs. their previous view:
Yes, it smacks of entitlement. Not only were they benefiting from a price fixing scam, but they got performer’s rights payments for unregistered artists because they were in the top 10%. Maybe still do.
Kirk Hammett is a legendary guitarist though so I’ll give them/him that. He also seems like a very decent man in interviews so I think he was maybe going along with things because of the influence of Hetfield and Lannister.
I don’t know what portion of album sales that artists were receiving (probably not that much), but I clearly remember cd’s being overpriced. I would say that the music industry did itself in, not fans sharing music.
They were definitely making hay while the sun shined. Fair enough if it wasn’t for price fixing and other shenanigans.
Whatever portion they were receiving of album sales, I didn’t hear any public complaints from them on album prices, although they had plenty to say on music being shared. That $5.98 ep tactic was from a different era in the 80’s, from what I would say was a very different band back then than the Metallica Inc. that they became, who railed against music sharing.
And yea. They definitely weren’t hurting for money, whatever the case on how they made it.
Lars was absolutely right about the future, or lack theof, that faced the music industry, especially the smaller artists.
If you guys think that Warner music would use the same reasoning with their payments to the bands, that they used to go after people who didn’t pay for the music they took, I’ve got a bridge to sell you.
Can any of you point to an example of a record company saying “well, our contract with you says this, but because we used a novel theory about liability equaling the cost of lost sales for each pirated album, we’re going to give you more money on that basis”
I don’t think so. Bands with enough legal resources might have been able to force them to hand over a fraction of that.
Metallica aren’t perfect, and certainly played a part, but I think the anger ended up being directed at the part of this issue that had the most visibility, rather than the part with the most responsibility.
The stories of Metallica suing their fans certainly didn’t help.
The bands were getting ripped off by the record companies, and having their music ripped off by their fans. I find it hard to get mad at them in all this.
That’s not what I said. I said that they were suing on the basis of lost sales and a sale means a cut for the band. The idea that they were suing on a 1:1 basis surely makes this more likely? You are saying the band got $0.00 of any ‘recovered’ money whereas the band would get a cut of any money from any other unpaid invoice that was then paid.
I’ve never seen a contract with a recording label that said “if we sue people for pirating albums, each unit listed shall count as an album or single sale, generating whatever specified revenue for the band”
But it’s been a while since I looked at such things. What I do know is that record companies will only forwared whatever they absolutely have to to the bands, and are absolutely not above using two sets of definitions and reasoning depending on who they are talking to.
If a band is paid a flat rate for the rights to something, they ain’t going to see anything from such legal action. And if their contract says x dollars per sale, they’d find a way to say the money wasn’t from and didn’t count as album sales.
Record companies have a long storied history of finding ways to screw bands over. Why would this be any different?
They were suing on the basis of lost sales though so any payment was for ‘lost sales’. For standard record label dealings we’d expect to see the bands getting saddled with all the legal fees and getting whatever’s left after the label’s cut.
General concepts don’t mean much in contracts, especially contracts with record companies.
If you get paid per album sold, you’d have to fight for anything that wasn’t directly from an album sale.
If you took one off payment for ownership of rights to something, you ain’t going to see a cent.
Goodwill happens outwith contractual agreement to retain business, in this case one of the biggest bands on the planet. To say they had zero sway over events is applying rules for indie artists to patterns involving established giants.
I’m sure Metallica’s lawyers wouldn’t have sat on their heels either while, say, $50m in extra revenue for ‘lost sales’ of their client’s material was claimed. The minute that question is asked, if the record company don’t give them anything, well that’s a ruined relationship and you end up with a Band Formerly Known as Metallica situation.
And still, no sign of empathy for the disproportionate money grabbing on the back of illegal price fixing. From them or you.
I still think you’re directing your salt based on visibility, not responsibility.
The record companies went after everyone listening to every band.
Metallica went after Napster.
The business facilitating the pirating of music. They didn’t sue one single fan.
I find it very difficult to believe that Metallica didn’t get a slice of the action, there’s no need to directly sue anybody when you are part of such a ‘class action’ type thing (not actually class action, but similar outcome). Please post where they’ve shown any empathy to the victims of this lawfare.