Are Metallica responsible for DRM

Whitestar

Whitestar

Whitestar

Associate
Joined
9 Jul 2004
Posts
1,132
Location
Folding for OcUK
As title says.

If Metallica hadn't sued napster would DRM be as prevailant as it is today, or would it be non exsistant?

And have they contributed to the relative death of p2p file sharing programs.


Mark
 
I doubt it - just 'cause they were the first doesn't mean they weren't the only people planning to.

-RaZ
 
Ah Metallica.

The hard metal band in league with the Devil himself, who then go running to the cops. Boo Hoo.
Cos lets face it, its all about the money and sod the music to them. :rolleyes:

Can't stand those idiots with what they did with the whole Napster thing and wouldn't give them a penny for any of their ****** albums.
To me they're not even credible anymore.

I can't stand DRM and wont buy anything that uses it, but I don't think Metallica are responsible for it as a whole.
It was always going to happen eventually, but they might have helped get the ball rolling a little quicker.
 
the only thing metallica are responsible for is a few decades worth of tripe.

*n

ps: apart from fuel and whisky in t'jar...because I like the videos.
 
hehe

"And look, there's poor Larz Ulrich from the rock band Metallica, because of music piracy, he now has to save up a little bit, like a normal person, before he can afford that solid gold bath-tub he wanted for his house..." /paraphrased South Park

If it hadn't been them, it would have been someone else.
I never bought any of their albums after the black album, anyway.. they just went a bit up themselves after that; mind you, they are getting on a bit now :p
Makes me laugh though, I seriously doubt that they had struggling artist's financial welfare in mind when they sued napster; of all the bands in the world Metallica are surely one of those who are most able to absorb the 'terrible losses and financial ruin that has virtually seen the entire collapse of the music industry as we know it, Jim.' :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
 
Digital Punk said:
The hard metal band in league with the Devil himself, who then go running to the cops. Boo Hoo.
Cos lets face it, its all about the money and sod the music to them. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Music? :p
 
i think the principle of the napster vs metallica was correct imo, i agree they dont need the money but it doesnt excuse people stealing music, to me its the same as Computer industry trying to protect their software from piracy or the film industry etc etc
i can remember abeit many years ago, chrissy hind (sp) on a chat show telling people to download all her records as she didnt mind , which was fine for her to say as she was obviously financially secure but im sure if she was just starting out her attitude would be different
its easy to attack the group for what they did to napster but seriously are you saying its ok to download material for free(stealing) instead of buying it , is it ok to download software illegally whilst others pay for it legitimately ?
 
I spent the summer of the napster 'thing' handing out CD-Rs at gigs and festivals with metallicas back catalogue on them.

wouldn't it be weird if someone on here got one of them :/

I must have given away about a thousand of them. they were white-backed and marked 'use me'.

*n
 
No, I dont think Metallica are responsible for DRM/Protection. They just put a punch into the already developing furor over downloaded music, and perhaps brought a little extra media attention to it.

They've encouraged bootlegging of thier concerts (which only happen once) for years and years, but I can see why they're trying to protect thier back catalog, as thats a seperate entity, and is available commercially.

People were already considering actions against Napster, and Metallica werent the only ones who took on the issue, and Im sure the initial machinations of DRM were already being considered behind locked doors, Metallica just were one of the largest bands to make a stand to protect thier commercially available materials. At the end of the day, they're well entitled to try and protect thier materiél, as Im sure most of us would if we found people were stealing our own personal material. Money is irrelevant, principle isn't.
 
Mr_White said:
Which is just a traditional irish song, most famously recorded by The Dubliners.

So that doesn't even count :p
Click to expand...

Metallica version was based on the Thin Lizzy version, rather than the more traditional Dubliners one :)
 
I agreed with Lars Ulrich when he said something along the lines of "You can come to our gigs and record them, you can bring video cameras, there are fans bringing portable recording studios to our gigs and we'll set an area aside for them but our studio albums are not for free".
Doesn't stop me from illegaly downloading but I agree with him.
 
Jihad said:
This.

Quite like Enter Sandman and Whiskey In The Jar but that'd be it.
Click to expand...

Do you have anything better to do than troll Metallica threads? Its the second time in roughly as many days as you've come into one and started moaning about thier music, when the rest of us are trying to discuss something else.
 
I don't really understand DRM very well, but I do support paying musicians for listening to their work, otherwise they'd all be on the dole. So I was not a user of peer to peer type stuff.

So I don't download music, might listen to the odd freebie on a record company website, then if I like it I go out and buy it.

Oh, and I quite like early Metallica, didn't alarm me when they sued.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom