Yea I already got a private message on KaZaa about illegal sharing and suing.
I was speaking only of rich musicians... I agree, not all musicians are this way.
And to say Metallica's new stuff is hard?? ARE YOU KIDDING ME!?!? "Ya push it out ya push it out" what the hell is that stuff rofl
I don't understand either... It isn't like Metallica is poor, you would think the band or musicians doing this would be the not as stable bands financially. It would make more sense for an artist to want to stop music downloading/mp3/sharing who wasn't as financially set as Metallica is.
That was the point behind the fight against Napster. They always said they were going after them because they didn't want bands that don't necessarily go platinum with every release to be financially hurt by illegal file sharing. And also, at the time, Lars owned a record label.
I also want to point out that Metallica has always said that they don't have a problem with file sharing, as long as it doesn't involve their master recordings. They've always encouraged fans to record and trade their live shows, sites like www.allmetallica.com should be a testament to that.
I like Metallica, I hate Bush, and St. Anger is a decent album... am I in the minority here?
Truthfully, I'm split on the whole filesharing thing. I don't try to justify it; I do it because I HAVE NO MONEY. (going into college.) I also think artists should be paid for their work, and if you don't like/agree with a position like Metallica's, then you should just deal with it. They could be rich jerks (and truthfully, I wouldn't doubt it), but bitching about them not being happy when you rip them off is just dumb. It's not like what they're saying is truthfully affecting you anyway, especially if you don't like them to begin with.
Now that I have been introduced to the wonders of filesharing however, I've heard of many more artists than I ever would have living in the midwestern US. Boards of Canada, The Dandy Warhols, Theatre of Tragedy, Vast, Test Dept. etc... loads of stuff, many different genres. I'm a very open-minded listener, but never would have bought any work by these artists before, as I had never heard them.
So, in summation -- filesharing (at least, music) is not morally wrong in the aspect that it makes a good evaluationary tool, whether you know it or not. When used to outright steal, the RIAA actually has a point... evil though they may be. To me, it is the evolution of radio, allowing for more choice. There will never be a clear stance on the issue, but basically it boils down to your own personal morality and values...
Then again, I could just be full of hot air; you decide.
I have to agree with you RadSil. If you give the whole St. Anger album a try, its pretty good. Now I'm not gonna say its better than their middle albums (...Justice and Puppets), its much better than the last few, which I still like, just for different reasons.
As for file sharing, I won't try to justify it. I do it like most. I also do sympathize with musicians. Many people think their life is a cake walk. I have personally known many struggling artist. I grew up around the punk scene of the late 80's early 90's. Spending most of your time on the road. Not seeing your family much. Its hell to even try for relationships. Are some spoiled by the wealth? Hell ya. Look at how many lived until they were big. Take a band like Metallica. They busted their asses for years, through 4 albums before they were financially in a position to enjoy. Look at how people who win the lottery squander their money.
To be honest, if I had $100 mill tomorrow, i would probably blow plenty of it on classic games. Replace everything I every sold. Who here wouldn't go buy (if you don't own it) Radiant Silvergun, PDS, or even games like the Lunar's or PS?