Comments on: How Musicians Are Causing Copyright Law Controversy http://lawvibe.com/how-musicians-are-causing-copyright-law-controversy/ International Law News | Lawyer Lifestyle Mon, 15 Mar 2010 16:12:52 -0400 http://wordpress.org/ hourly 1 By: Quibbley http://lawvibe.com/how-musicians-are-causing-copyright-law-controversy/comment-page-1/#comment-13416 Quibbley Thu, 20 Mar 2008 20:20:06 +0000 http://lawvibe.com/how-musicians-are-causing-copyright-law-controversy/#comment-13416 Do you mean to tell me that Lar$ as a teenager in the 70's did not EVER share music with friends? Never did he make a mix tape his favorite NWOBHM like Angelwitch and give it to a friend to check out? I did. My friends did. I doubt that he was never on the receiving end of a freebie, which would have been "against that band's will". If you want to break it down to the lowest common denominator, I think many of us did this. I have purchased all of Metallica's library. Some albums like Master of Puppets and Ride the Lightning, I have purchased MULTIPLE times. Now that I have a digital copy, I won't have to buy it again. Do you mean to tell me that Lar$ as a teenager in the 70’s did not EVER share music with friends? Never did he make a mix tape his favorite NWOBHM like Angelwitch and give it to a friend to check out? I did. My friends did. I doubt that he was never on the receiving end of a freebie, which would have been “against that band’s will”. If you want to break it down to the lowest common denominator, I think many of us did this. I have purchased all of Metallica’s library. Some albums like Master of Puppets and Ride the Lightning, I have purchased MULTIPLE times. Now that I have a digital copy, I won’t have to buy it again.

]]> By: Jarrod McMaugh http://lawvibe.com/how-musicians-are-causing-copyright-law-controversy/comment-page-1/#comment-11269 Jarrod McMaugh Wed, 07 Nov 2007 08:42:34 +0000 http://lawvibe.com/how-musicians-are-causing-copyright-law-controversy/#comment-11269 There is one thing you may wish to consider in comparing Metallica with Radiohead and Nine Inch Nails in this case. Radiohead and Nine Inch Nails CHOSE their method of distribution. Metallica did not choose to have their songs made available on Napster. This is the core of the issue, control and choice - not money (although obviously money is controlled by choice etc). Metallica has a very large website made available for their concerts to be downloaded over the internet - those that have been mastered attract a charge, those which have not are FREE (yes, Metallica actually gives away their music for free - livemetallica.com) - Again, it is not about the money (livemetallica.com runs at a loss, as royalties are paid to bands whom Metallica covers in concert when those songs are paid for at livemetallica.com) My point is this - Metallica's stance on Napster was about control, not money. And they are not the only band to have taken such a stance (famously Jack White took time while touring Europe to call a Detroit radio station from Spain because they were broadcasting Icky Thump before it's official release). Radio stations, television stations, movie studios, record labels, distributors etc all pay royalties to the writers of the music they use to generate their incomes. Why should it be any different for a website? Any why should any person be able to download any music they like for free, when it costs money to produce that music? There is one thing you may wish to consider in comparing Metallica with Radiohead and Nine Inch Nails in this case.

Radiohead and Nine Inch Nails CHOSE their method of distribution. Metallica did not choose to have their songs made available on Napster. This is the core of the issue, control and choice – not money (although obviously money is controlled by choice etc).

Metallica has a very large website made available for their concerts to be downloaded over the internet – those that have been mastered attract a charge, those which have not are FREE (yes, Metallica actually gives away their music for free – livemetallica.com) – Again, it is not about the money (livemetallica.com runs at a loss, as royalties are paid to bands whom Metallica covers in concert when those songs are paid for at livemetallica.com)

My point is this – Metallica’s stance on Napster was about control, not money. And they are not the only band to have taken such a stance (famously Jack White took time while touring Europe to call a Detroit radio station from Spain because they were broadcasting Icky Thump before it’s official release).

Radio stations, television stations, movie studios, record labels, distributors etc all pay royalties to the writers of the music they use to generate their incomes. Why should it be any different for a website? Any why should any person be able to download any music they like for free, when it costs money to produce that music?

]]>