metalgirl
I Wanna Ride Your Fatboy
Premium
join:2001-02-17
Rockford, IL
| reply to Diamond Dust
Re: Metallica Bad
Please...I'm 40yrs old...married...own my home... and have kids...
I'm not your "run of the mill" headbanger....
I haven't listened to the radio in years 
Why does Metallica say their new album is going to be like the "old days"?
IMO... they knew they sold out and want to try to get the former fans back... this Speakeasy stuff is all about publicity for them...
Thanks but no thanks...I'll keep my money;)
MG
--
Do you have a Ford Windstar that has the Starburst-type hubcaps? Do they make a rattling noise?P.M. me....together we can stop this madness! |
|
pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD
 ·Comcast
| reply to Jaime
said by Jaime  :
Trading with your buddies and family is a bit different than trading with hundreds of thousands of people, don't you think?
I'm not debating that the act of sharing copyrighted works without the consent of the copyright owner is illegal. There is no question that this is illegal. The means by which the material is shared and the number of people you share with also doesn't change the fact that the act of sharing in itself is illegal.
Metallica's approach, though, encouraged people to share their stuff with their friends, who would then share it with their friends, and so on and so forth. If someone did that with Napster, the end result would be similar to what would happen if thousands of people copied Metallica's stuff and distributed it to all their friends by hand. Either way, lots of people would have copies of their music. I just think it was hypocritical for Metallica to be OK with one form of copyright infringement but not the other, that's all.
--
Saying that Microsoft has a monopoly in Operating Systems because one is too lazy to learn a different OS is like saying that Ford has a monopoly in cars because one is too lazy to find a Honda dealership. |
|
footballdude
Premium
join:2002-08-13
Imperial, MO
| reply to metalgirl
said by metalgirl :
Please...I'm 40yrs old...married...own my home... and have kids...
I'm not your "run of the mill" headbanger....
I haven't listened to the radio in years
Actually, that sounds like every headbanger I know these days. The only CDs I've bought in ten years is the new FOZZY CDs. |
|
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX
| reply to pnh102
said by pnh102 :
Either way, lots of people would have copies of their music. I just think it was hypocritical for Metallica to be OK with one form of copyright infringement but not the other, that's all.
For once we agree.... partially. I am still no convinced it's copyright infringement. I have read copyright law time and time again and it doesn't show any solid indication that sharing music, that doesn't generate revenue or profit, is illegal. When you start selling it or making money from it is where you have the problem. That's what got Napster blasted. Remember much of what the RIAA says is what they claim is law. Even with the NET act sharing music is still legal as long as it's under a certain monetary value.
As far as Metallica is concerned they endorsed distribution of their music as long as it's not for profit. Even though copyright law pretty much says the same thing they reinforced it. Lars going back on that, most likely caught up in either greed or propaganda put forth by the RIAA, pretty much throws his entire claim out the window.
--
Love Science Fiction? www.spacestationzoom.com |
|
jj nobody
join:2000-08-31
Lakeland, FL | reply to Diamond Dust
Thanks for making such a rash generalization, jackass |
|
