To anyone who hasn't been paying attention. I do agree that the record companies need to change there model. That actually is happening to an extent.
Do I believe you should be able to copy your CDs. Hell yes I do.
I don't believe that if you do make a copy you should have the right to put it out on the internet for everybody to have. Is doing so stealing. maybe that's the wrong word to use. But the fact is that in 2000 people didn't look at this in the same light as today. Business models change over time. That's the nature of any buisness.
The idea that record companies don't make money on the songs they produce may be a somewhat real arguement. But the fact that they go to pay for the recording of these songs does mean that there is a possible loss to the recording companies, when people give these things out freely. For the songs to be recorded the money has to come from somewhere.
This isn't intellectual property we are talking about. It's real property. This isn't an idea. They are actual songs recorded and put out for sale by a band and a record company that did so to make money.
And the fact that it is free for you to burn a CD does not give you the right to put it on the internet and give it to anyone who askes. That's what napster did. And with good reason the record companies had issue with that.
And if you haven't noticed the record companies have changed. In no small part to issues like this.
I'm sorry you don't get the analogy. In my eyes property is property. Or better put a product is a product.
And I heard about Metalica the exact same way. From the headbangers I was around. Not from the radio. Just because they started there by word of mouth through fans (most bands do start this way) doesn't mean that they have to roll over and take a loss because there fans want it that way.
And Disheval, that's been my point the whole time. My origanal question was, why should the get beat up for trying to protect proprerty that they clearly have rights to. Right descision or wrong.
maybe so but many people can own the same house, just at a different address. I can have a house that looks just like yours if i want. And just because it's easier or cheaper to create copies of somethings and not others doesn't mean that it doesn't take money to make it happen. It also doesn't mean that the people making it happen shouldn't be able to make a profit.
There are plenty of business models that are passed over because there isn't a profit seen. Does that mean the model is worng, not really, it could just mean the bean counters aren't looking in the right place for the profit. Tha is exactly what happened in the music business. When the were forced to expore other options they did.
Quite honestly I'm not defending him or Metalica. All I'm saying and have been saying is I don't understand what he did that was so wrong? Was it a mistake in judgement? Seems to me he's saying that himself.
I saw it coming to. But seeing it coming and having a real buisness model, that makes a profit are two very different things. And until the music business saw a profitable business model, they were reluctant to change. They didn't start change until it was shown to them that it had to happen.
Was that short sightedness? I think so. But that's not what this article or my comment was about. It's about Metalica and Lars saying that he's proud of his actions.
If someone came to me and said I might lose hundreds of thousands of dollars. I might be reluctant to be the first to take the step myself.
The reality is that the internet has forced recod companies to change. this hasn't been easy for them. Do they have to find different buisness models to work with? HELL YES!
But I'm sorry back in 2000, people didn't see how that would play out. Napster wasn't looking at trying to change a business model. They were looking for a way to exchange music quickly and cheaply over th internet.
Music isn't free on the radio. They pay to be able to play those songs for you, and to broadcast them. The ability to do that is paid for by the comercials you here on the radio. Just because you don't pay for it. Doesn't mean it's free.
I won't mind paying you when I buy the house, no. Would I pay you to live in it after I bought it? No. But then again I won't pay Metalica every time I put one of there CDs in either. Do I think gives me the right to take my copy and give it to anyone I want,, anywhere in the world. Yep, I'm not onboard with that thought.
So just because it seems to not cost much, to you. It should be free?
Even if it costs a penny a song to reproduce, that becomes a pretty high number multipied by hundreds of thousands.
And as for napster, limewire, and all the rest. I agree they saw the inovation in what hey were doing. Did it change the face of music today? Yes it did. But the reason record companies didn't fall into line with them is because there was no profit shown in what they had to offer. That didn't until apple proved that even with file sharing profit could be made.
Like it or not, the music buisness is call a buisness because it is one. It's there to make money. And if it's not obvious that money can be made, they won't be going there.
The house is no different than a song. It's all a product created to generate income.
Wether you like Lars or not has nothing to do with anything. This is about who owns the rights to music that someone creates. I believe the artist has the rights and owns the music. bands do this to make money. At the time that Metalica was fighting napster nobody in the music industy had any idea what to do with file sharing.
Like I said if you built a house, would you just let someone move in? No you wou7ldn't. Even if the house looked just like the house next door. YOu would still expect to be paid by the person who moved in.
I suppose. strange though that I was actually there. I was a fan before metalica started headlining shows. They were very differnt at the time. The Metalica from Kill em all was nothing like what you hear today. Were there heavy metal artist out there that where making music. Sure there were. Alot of them. But you didn't hear that on the radio in the 80's. Not until after bands like Metalica came on board. Was it because they were so different than the rest of them, not really. But they did get noticed. And once that happened there was huge amount of record companies looking for bands like them.
I realize this. I also realize that most tours throughout history, don't make money. But there would be no way that Metalica would be what they are without selling albums. Without the push that MTV gave them. They went from opening up tours for Ozzy Osbourne and playing club gigs, to selling out huge venues around the world. Maybe they would be in buisness and playing music but they wouldn't be the icons people see today without record sales. For god sakes, Metalica and bands like them are the reason you here heavy metal on the radio today. Before them, it was pretty slim pickings, even though there was a very large fanbase.
Ar, I think you're right. I do think he's saying they made a mistake in underestimating all of this. But back in 2000, who in the music industry really understood where this could go. Nobody had seen anything like it before, and nobody had any real vision on what to do until Apple came up with Itunes.
Re: Re:
(untitled comment)
Do I believe you should be able to copy your CDs. Hell yes I do.
I don't believe that if you do make a copy you should have the right to put it out on the internet for everybody to have. Is doing so stealing. maybe that's the wrong word to use. But the fact is that in 2000 people didn't look at this in the same light as today. Business models change over time. That's the nature of any buisness.
The idea that record companies don't make money on the songs they produce may be a somewhat real arguement. But the fact that they go to pay for the recording of these songs does mean that there is a possible loss to the recording companies, when people give these things out freely. For the songs to be recorded the money has to come from somewhere.
(untitled comment)
Re: Re:
And if you haven't noticed the record companies have changed. In no small part to issues like this.
(untitled comment)
And I heard about Metalica the exact same way. From the headbangers I was around. Not from the radio. Just because they started there by word of mouth through fans (most bands do start this way) doesn't mean that they have to roll over and take a loss because there fans want it that way.
And Disheval, that's been my point the whole time. My origanal question was, why should the get beat up for trying to protect proprerty that they clearly have rights to. Right descision or wrong.
(untitled comment)
There are plenty of business models that are passed over because there isn't a profit seen. Does that mean the model is worng, not really, it could just mean the bean counters aren't looking in the right place for the profit. Tha is exactly what happened in the music business. When the were forced to expore other options they did.
(untitled comment)
(untitled comment)
(untitled comment)
(untitled comment)
Was that short sightedness? I think so. But that's not what this article or my comment was about. It's about Metalica and Lars saying that he's proud of his actions.
If someone came to me and said I might lose hundreds of thousands of dollars. I might be reluctant to be the first to take the step myself.
(untitled comment)
(untitled comment)
But I'm sorry back in 2000, people didn't see how that would play out. Napster wasn't looking at trying to change a business model. They were looking for a way to exchange music quickly and cheaply over th internet.
(untitled comment)
(untitled comment)
(untitled comment)
Even if it costs a penny a song to reproduce, that becomes a pretty high number multipied by hundreds of thousands.
And as for napster, limewire, and all the rest. I agree they saw the inovation in what hey were doing. Did it change the face of music today? Yes it did. But the reason record companies didn't fall into line with them is because there was no profit shown in what they had to offer. That didn't until apple proved that even with file sharing profit could be made.
Like it or not, the music buisness is call a buisness because it is one. It's there to make money. And if it's not obvious that money can be made, they won't be going there.
The house is no different than a song. It's all a product created to generate income.
(untitled comment)
(untitled comment)
Like I said if you built a house, would you just let someone move in? No you wou7ldn't. Even if the house looked just like the house next door. YOu would still expect to be paid by the person who moved in.
(untitled comment)
(untitled comment)
(untitled comment)
More comments from sivad >>
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by sivad.
Submit a story now.
Tools & Services
TwitterFacebook
RSS
Podcast
Research & Reports
Company
About UsAdvertising Policies
Privacy
Contact
Help & FeedbackMedia Kit
Sponsor/Advertise
Submit a Story
More
Copia InstituteInsider Shop
Support Techdirt