Metallica Sued Napster For This?
from the pound-foolish dept
David Levine has a post up looking at Metallica's revenue streams last year. Apparently, the band made the vast majority of its money from concert revenue -- bringing in $22.8 million. It made $1.6 million from album sales. As Levine notes:Hmmm...think it would make a lot of difference to the world if they lost the $1.6 million from the albums? Without copyright they'd only make $22.8 million from touring...You might almost think it would be worth it to them to give the recorded music away for free to promote their concerts...Or, hell, give away the tracks and promote other stuff as well. Selling music directly (relying on copyright) is a tiny business compared to the opportunities elsewhere. And, of all the bands out there, Metallica should clearly recognize that.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: album sales, copyright, live, metallica, revenue
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Interestingly Billboard also states: "Our figures do not include revenue from merchandise sales, sponsorships, synchronization deals and songwriter performance royalties."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
http://www.livemetallica.com/
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I just cannot....
Do I support their stance on Napster?... no but...I dare you to be mad at them after that breadfan shit rips your silly notions of metal, and music for that matter, to smithereens..
bbb
wheatus.com
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Much as I agree with you on the subject of that particular cover, it can not overcome the disgust that must overwhelm any sane person upon hearing more than a minute of St. Anger.
A shittier, more expensively produced album has yet to see the light of day.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
http://prettyboring.com/files/images/james%20hetfield%20metallica%20so%20sold%20out.jpg
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Wasn't it about control ?
I seem to remember it being said that wasn't about the money many times [I assume by Lars].
I respect their desire for control.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: I just cannot....
Their cover of breadfan is pure pwnage all the way around....
smiles
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Well...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Well...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
@wheatus
LIKE where would metallica be without guys like me
SUCKING DICK on hollywood bullavard with all the other faggits
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Well...
Technology has brought a sea change that many need to learn (re-learn?) how to surf.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Well...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Thanks, I caught that after I read the Billboard site too. At first I'd thought Dave had skimped on the numbers but it turns out the word had just been taken out of context so it was at least partly my bad.
Btw, I have no sympathy for Metallica, time and time again they prove themselves to be morons. It is a shame because I grew up listening to their earlier albums (which I bought, more's the pity).
What would be really interesting is what they make on merchandise.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
You should have bought a CD!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Well...
They will steal your music and explain to you that it's your fault because anything digital is so easy to steal and because your business model is broken.
I happen to agree with them that new business models are needed, but I disagree that that gives them the right to steal in the meantime.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
But before the early 1900's musicians couldn't make money on recordings either. There was a window of about a century, between the time that recordings were possible at all--with sizable capital cost-- and the time that anyone could clone recordings for zero cost.
And I suspect the phenomenon of the non-touring recording artist was limited to a few cases from 1950-2000.
It's not that different from the 18-month period in the early 1950s when the Big Bands collapsed -- suddenly what people were willing to pay for music would not support a dozen musicians in a group. The way that performers can make money is going to change as a function of the economy, and technology is one factor in that economy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Wasn't it about control ?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Well...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Well...
VERY VERY well said, but you overlooked that little mikee m will also claim that you are the one that is a member of the "entitlement" society, and the goverment is only making it worse for you by granting you a "monopoly" on your very own work...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Well...
What you have to recognise is that if you want to make more money out of it then you have to build a business model around it, whether that be merchandise or something else. Pointing to other peoples business models and saying 'I don't want to do that' doesn't help much, especially when you don't say why.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Well...
Hmm so you don't want to do anything but try to collect and a check for doing what?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Well...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
DP, when I write about small bands, I'm told "this will never work for big bands." When I write about big bands I'm told "I only care about small bands."
We write about what we find interesting -- which is a mix of everything -- because I believe that's the best way to FULLY understand these issues.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Well...
What if I'm a writer that doesn't want to put up any of my content?
See... you have to do what the market says. That doesn't mean you have to tour. In fact many of the models we've discussed (like Josh Freese's and Motoboy's) had nothing at all to do with touring.
But it does take away one arena from which you can make money. That's your choice, but don't blame the world for telling you you picked a bad business model.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Well...
this guy wants to sit on his ass and just have money handed to him because he put some music on a piece of plastic.
Sorry, but the music industry NEVER worked that way.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
@AdamR
do you even get off a couch
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bands and record companies don't care whether they're making money; they care whether they're making *as much (or more) money as they are now*.
Using this example, if Metallica stopped selling albums, they'd lose $1.6 million. Whether or not that's a lot of money compared to the $22.8 million they've made from live shows is irrelevant. It's $1.6m that they wouldn't have. They've gone from $24.2m to $22.8m
You could argue that the promotion and good PR made from giving the music away would make them more than $1.6m in the long run, but that's not what they see. They see a definite $1.6m from sales or a *possible* (and risky) $1.6m+ from giving it away. In their eyes, it's not worth it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Are you sure they don't see it as, "We've made $1.6m from album sales. Just think how much we'd have made if it wasn't for those pirates!"?
What I'd like to do is track their earnings from 1990 to 2000 and see what effect the internet had on their overall earnings, album profits in particular. Did they really see a significant dip in album profits starting with Napster's surge in popularity around 1998? If so did overall profits decrease, increase or stay the same?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Well...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Well...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Well...
Remember the Beatles? Yeah, them. They stopped touring because they wanted to keep pushing the bounds of creativity and the music they were developing couldn't be replicated properly in a live setting. They also limited the amount of merchandise sales to preserve the value of the Beatles brand.
You may like The Jonas Brothers and Britney Spears, but many of us appreciate real music and we feel that artists should be able to get paid for creating it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Well...
Remember the Beatles? Yeah, them. They stopped touring because they wanted to keep pushing the bounds of creativity and the music they were developing couldn't be replicated properly in a live setting. They weren't sitting on their asses. They also limited the amount of merchandise sales to preserve the value of the Beatles brand.
You may like The Jonas Brothers and Britney Spears, but many of us appreciate real music and we feel that artists should be able to get paid for creating it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Well...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Well...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Well...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Well...
Really?
I always wondered why the band broke up. and now I finally have the answer.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Well...
Its copyright infringement, and that is all it is and will ever be.
You can call it stealing, and I will continue to laugh at your ignorance
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Well...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Thanks for your reply, much appreciated.
We think your model will work for both big and small bands. The only thing we see as a slight flaw in it - is that the small bands have to get to a certain level before CwF + RtB becomes a viable model for them. That's why we dismissed the big bands, it will OBVIOUSLY work for them as you explained very convincingly re: NIN.
If you can explain to us how small bands can achieve that level without selling their soul to an "old model" label - or giving away the rights to their "scarce goods" to a "new model" manager or label. We will then be certain that we "FULLY" understand this as well as you do.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Well...
Let me tempt you to the dark side by suggesting you tell us why your emotive use of the word steal trumps any logical argument as to why infringement is not equivalent to taking a book.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
On the other hand, there are plenty of big bands who aren't any good, and the record label messed up by signing them; these bands often stop being big bands, or just aren't very successful.
I guess its time for some bands to admit to themselves that they aren't good enough to get rich and famous off their music. I'm all for music diversity, but some bands need to except that their music will never have a big following. Maybe they might even get a decent following, but people don't consider them good enough to go to their concerts or buy their swag.
Small bands that are excellent, and that promote themselves via CwF + RtB type ideas will get known and will make money. This obviously won't work with small bands that are only good, just like the traditional model doesn't work with big bands that are only 'good', since every week we leave behind one hit wonders.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Well...
Recording technology changed the options for musicians...but then other technologies changed the options again. And many examples out there demonstrate that the market for good music is pretty swell. Deal.
The era you long for lasted a trivial portion of human history, heck, not even the full 20th century.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
People have such a strange sense of entitlement when it comes to music. Go out and spend the $15 on a damn cd, ya cheap bastards.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Well...
Dude, you totally fell for that bait. Ryan suckered you into making a provably false statement. Copyright infringement is NOT theft. Not according to:
- tenets of basic economics
- the law.
"You can't hide it." Heh. You're wrong about this, and just need to look it up.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Well...
and are factually incorrect
"you call it whatever you want."
I call it copyright infringement, which has the benefit of being correct.
Similarly, if someone starts a fire, I call it arson, not jaywalking. There are reasons we call different things by different words. It helps have a rational discourse with shared understandings.
"If you don't like the laws of this country, work to have them changed"
Agreed.
"go somewhere else"
I occasionally do, thanks.
"or shut up."
Not an option. And not really aligned with the spirit of the US constitution. But that's where you're at.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Well...
a) I don't like it
b) I like it, but hate getting it on CD
c) I like it, but hate having to buy multiple copies
d) I like it, but prefer to listen to bands that are accessible and highly interested in their fans
e) I like it, but don't find $15 of value in a piece of plastic
f) I like it, but want to be able to share it with my friends
Sorry, I choose no thanks. Oh, wait, you won't make any money--guess I'll just keep paying my taxes and your unemployment...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I'm so old
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Well...
"Wrong. It's not about sitting on your ass, it's about creating music that may not be designed for bars and stadiums."
...and THEN sitting on your ass because you are entitled to a never-ending stream of money for work you finished years before.
"You may like The Jonas Brothers and Britney Spears, but many of us appreciate real music"
Maybe I do like Britney, maybe CVPunk does, maybe not. But how taste in music matter to the discussion?
"and we feel that artists should be able to get paid for creating it." and so do we. No regular poster on the Techdirt board is against artist getting paid for their work and contributions. No one advocates stealing, and almost no regular poster here advocates copyright infringement.
But we do advocate delivering ongoing value for ongoing revenue. We do advocate more fair use and public domain, and the incredible value they create. We do advocate the use and understanding of economics to issues of intellectual property and copyright. We do advocate the use of modern business models to reward and compensate artists. And we do exercise our right to free speech and to vote and work towards our goals.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
**They are giving away their music for free... from the **live shows.
**http://www.livemetallica.com/
Free? I pay for my tickets, don't you?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Well...
VERY VERY well said, but you overlooked that little mikee m will also claim that you are the one that is a member of the "entitlement" society, and the goverment is only making it worse for you by granting you a "monopoly" on your very own work...
And providing you with a license called copyright to steal from society for your lifetime plus 70 years. Sad,sad,sad..
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I think you will find that the record labels rarely lose anything on such deals...at least not until they have financially ruined those bands that do not pay back their debts...er..."advances".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Well...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Well...
Oh, you mean...the laws that call it copyright infringement and not theft? I guess you should shut up and leave now. Bye.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: by Nate
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
You are referring to the RIAA and cronies, right?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
You probably do not understand why some bars have a free buffet during happy hour. Those bums ought to pay for their dinner, but no - they want a freebee.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: I just cannot....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: I just cannot....
The only way I would say Metallica was metal is if I prefaced metal with 'classic'.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Not all .mp3 files are 99 cents. On some musician's websites, they give them away, for FREE.
Seems like an awful lot of competition for those who traffic in PAY music, all that FREE music, being available.
I know! Let's demonize human nature!
"We're raising an entire generation of thieves, a society of stealers!"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Well...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Well...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Well...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Simple find some self promotion guru that has a couple hundred thousand fans on face book, find someone on youtube that has 1 million hits, find someone with a massive following on any social networking site, find a huge blog, find a musician thats has a big ... blog, and introduce yourself and ask if they could listen to your music and if they can suggest anyone that could help promote you. Then maintain that relationship by asking for guidance. What do you think? would your fans like this? etc....
We are going back to the way things worked before record labels, you need fans, you need patrons. Find a bunch of mentors and promoters. It is really simple start networking. Start with people who are can be accessed and work your way up the food chain. Find artists from 10-40 years ago, studio musicians, back up singers, people that have dropped out of the business after a couple hits and ask ... "what do you think of this track? I just want your opinion. My friend told me it sounds like that track you did with (insert artist name here). Personally I dont hear it. What do you think?"
If you have talent it helps. If you dont find someone to remix horrible sound of cats in a blender you consider good into something pleasant on the ears.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
DP, I've discussed numerous less well known bands that have succeeded with this kind of model:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091119/1634117011.shtml
But the basic answer is that you start small -- just like any band -- and build up a fanbase, and do the same basic things at a more local level. But keep pushing and expanding.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Well...
I don't care. You take something that you don't have a right to take, you're a thief in my books.
Thankfully, not in the book of the law of the land.
Amusingly, of course, in this very same thread, McBeese wrote:
If you don't like the laws of this country, work to have them changed, go somewhere else, or shut up.
Time for you to take your advice. Under the laws of this land, copyright infringement is not theft. So, time for you to work to have them changed, go somewhere else, or shut up.
At least according to McBeese.
So which one are you choosing, McBeese?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Well...
Writing new songs? Recording them? Trying out production techniques? You know, what musicians do when they're not touring...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Remember, there aren't a whole lot of small bands out there that are any good. I'm not saying that most small bands aren't good, just that if they are, they usually sell out to a record company, and then they become 'big bands'."
You are obviously still clinging to the old model, no small band that is good would want to get involved with a label these days. They risk going down with the old system.
Nice try.
Next.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Once again thanks for your time.
Excellent, hadn't seen the article provided by that link. Both Corey Smith and Mathew Ebel provide examples of what we are looking for. So you have proved your point as far as we are concerned.
Glad to see Mathew Ebel has decided to ditch Sellaband and is encouraging his supporters to deal directly with him.
Cheers.
Jacqui & Johnny.
Devilish Presley.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Phew, you were starting to sound like Gollum.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Copyright effects
Yes there is an argument for the "originator" or "first" that would be more apparent once copiers are prevalent, but I think my example still holds weight, correct?
The point I guess would be how we adapt to that change from the way things are done now and also to say that the current figure of 23mil from touring isn't a constant when copyright is finally dispelled, which is sometimes a notion that I feel is believed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
We are Quadrophrenic, and one of us does look like Gollum....maybe both of us do, we don't caaaaaaare.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Well...
There's lots of stuff I like to do, but none of it is profitable, so I have a real job. Don't whine to me that what you really want to do might not keep food on your table.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
If you can't figure out how to make money while you give away your advertising, find a new line of work and stop whining.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Copyright effects
But honestly, why should Metallica care if someone else starts performing their songs (which often happens; they're called tribute bands)? It's (again) free publicity for them, and it's not like nobody would recognize if someone tried to pass off one of Metallica's songs as one of their own.
Any band that tried to pass of the song as an original would lose credibility with their fans once the fraud was discovered.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Tea Party timeline - true story
Teenager takes it to school and a few friends listen. Teenager makes a copy of the album on tape.
Friends play it to friends. More copies made.
The Tea Party tours. By now over 20 friends from the one high school are into the band. All buy tickets to the concert. Concert is amazing.
All 20 friends have been going as a group to Tea Party concerts, Jeff Martin solo gigs and The Armada concerts for over 10 years.
Number of CD's sold: 0
[ link to this | view in thread ]
INSANE
firstly it was about other people profiting from there music.
It is there right to sue someone who profits from there music.
Yes they are hugely successfull & have made squillions & they deserve it . they have provided over 100 million people with enjoyment and the way it stands there will be no other band like them in our lifetime.
Who cares though if people download or buy it is what it is
RADIOHEAD , TEAPARTY they are not even in metallicas league . Look at metallicas stage show and look at radioheads dont make me laugh.
Metallica are the kings of metal and tough shit if you dont like it because they will be remembered for all time unlike most bands today .
sadly a band needs money to tour and as long as band is small and there albums are getting downlaoded for free the chances of longevity will no longer exist
keep downloading for free. Butt stop complaining about them making money . because in fact your saving yours
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: INSANE
Secondly, no one is debating where Metallica ranks against other musicians, so this whole section of your rant is extraneous.
Thirdly, Metallica's stage show is huge because they charge more than most other bands with smaller stage setups, and still make a boatload off touring, so downloading hasn't hurt that one bit. What's your point in bringing this up?
Fourthly, what's a "Butt stop?" And no one is complaining about them making money. Did you even RTFA? Are you a complete moron, or just a partial moron? Can you even put together one complete sentence with proper capitalization, spelling, grammer and punctuation?
I suspect you are either very young or developmentally dissabled.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
if you know anything about music and recording you would understand that it costs money to make an album .
metallica doesnt need to worry about that because they have the money to do that. A small band who is just starting out doesnt need people to download there stuff for free as they need capitol to tour or to pay back there label.
so my point is how about file sharing sites allow people to advertise for free.
Maybe you have an issue because you cant bring yourself to pay for music
It does matter were they stand in music because they were not the only ones who sued napstar . Since they are so big there the ones who have been targeted .
People are complaining about them making money thats why its seems ok for people to illegally download there music .
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Well...
I don't agree with the Napster issue but not one person here has never made a mistake, huge ones at that - Lars' biggest mistake was that, and he learned from it (there is evidence of this, not only in quotes but attitude). Example: he welcomed a leak for Death Magnetic (a shop in I believe France sold it early and then it got on Internet).
The fact is also they were always pro-bootleg. They still are, and the reason they charge for the show downloads is maintanance (think of bandwidth they use). It's true they should not have sued fans, but if nothing else I guess they did do a favour to smaller artists and face it - someone would have done it eventually (hell, look at the pirate bay as one example). I for one am happy they provide shows as the venues here are very strict (Plus I don't have recording equip anyway).
As for St. Anger. Blah. As James said: they needed to make that to get past their troubles. That's how it goes sometimes. I didn't really enjoy St. Anger but the tour was still awesome, and then Death Magnetic came ...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
I don't agree necessarily with suing fans, but the fact remains they had a right to do it, just as much as hollywood for a movie being downloaded. That said, some laws are a bit silly (making a backup copy for self, for example, last I knew is illegal - which is plain old stupid).
Nevertheless, Metallica may have made some mistakes and may have made a crappy album (eg St Anger) but they have made a huge impact of the metal scene, made many incredible albums, put on great shows, and even positively changed many many fans lives (myself included). Let's not even forget the charities they participate in!
People just want a scapegoat and by pointing fingers and blaming for something that you could blame the fans for even (right or wrong), well that is just ignoring the real issue and not helping anything or anyone. Hell, even back in early days (Ride the Lightning) they were called sell outs.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Well...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]