What do you guys think?

[verso]

"I don't see them doing anything different than any other band out there, except for the fact that they were outspoken about the Napster ordeal."

And began suing their fans. Joe, I cannot think of any other band - well maybe a few - but not a whole lot of bands that go to such lengths to "protect" their music.

Check out www.archive.org - those bands allow their fans to download their live performances for free so long as no money changes hands.

Metallica on the other hand, sells their live performances and do not make them available for free to their fans.

"Among other things, making money is why they do what they do."

Uh, exactly? That's why I said with Metallica it is about the money and not the music.

- Steven

[toddvj]

There is probably no point in arguing this anymore, but...

Did Metallica actually get any money from any of the "fans" they sued? Did they actually even go through with it?

Do the bands at Archive.org actually record the shows themselves, or pay someone to do it? Or have anything to do with it whatsoever, besides "allowing their fans to download live performances?" Hmmm...I wonder which one has better production quality? Maybe professional quality IS worth paying for.

[Joe Shmoe]

<--- rolling my eyes & shaking my head LOL.

Well said Todd. I can remember years ago Metallica did allow cameras & crap into the arena. And if you read at the bottom of that live link, some venues do not have live recordings because they charged too much to allow Metallica to record the show, so apparently they have to pay a fee to have it done & that would mean losing money if they didn't charge anything for it.

As you said this is becoming pointless.

[verso]

"Do the bands at Archive.org actually record the shows themselves, or pay someone to do it? Or have anything to do with it whatsoever, besides "allowing their fans to download live performances?" Hmmm...I wonder which one has better production quality? Maybe professional quality IS worth paying for"

No money changes hands. The bands allow their fans to tape their shows and then they upload them to the website where they can be downloaded in lossy or lossless formats free of charge.

These recordings are rarely amateur. The sound quality is excellent. Maybe not 'professional' but pretty damn good.

And ok, professional quality is worth paying for. Even the bands I listen to will not allow for some shows to be uploaded and downloaded freely - because they plan to in the future market the show.

It's understandable. There's nothing wrong with marketing a few shows.

But not Metallica, no they'll have none of that! Metallica wants the money from all of their shows. Heh.

Do you really think that if Metallica all of a sudden made all of their live performances readily available for download - that they wouldn't be rich anymore? Heh.

Please! They'd still be collecting enormous amounts of revenue from their shows and from their studio recordings.

It's about respect, it's about the music.

"Hey I went to that Metallica show and it kicked ***! I'd like to get a copy of it...what? I need to pay - again?"

Way to hose your fans. Heh.

Think of it like this, a museum of art. Now, to see the original pieces of art you'll have to pay to get into the museum and look at them.

But you can jump on Google and find a picture of the piece of art - it won't be the real thing (like a professional quality CD of a live performance or an actual studio recording) but it'll do just fine.

Now Metallica is that museum, right? And what they're saying is - "No! That's our piece of art and no one can look at it on Google! Or we'll sue them! You have to come into the museum and pay!"

That isn't the best analogy but it works.

- Steven

[DrWho]

For the record, it's technically not illegal to download music anyway (though the laws are slowly changing). You will notice that all of the court cases have taken place in the civil courts...the same courts that people can sue McDonalds for making hot coffee and then pouring it in their lap. It is not a violation of the copyright laws to put music on the internet and allow it's download...if it was, then the government would be taking a lot of different approaches. The morality of downloading is another issue and this is how most cases are won in the civil courts.

There are some stats floating around the web where both sides try to use numbers to make a claim. For example, the record companies complain about how single sales dropped like 20% when downloading came into play. What they fail to show is that there are MUCH FEWER singles being produced. Bands nowadays are doing enough work to get a single made, but the producers want more music and keep the band an extra day or two in order to have enough songs to sell an "ablum" and earn more profit. Ironically, it's very rare for a musician to even see any of this money (unless of course special deals were made like all the very very popular bands do). Anyways, album sales have actually increased by like 3% during this "20%" drop. And at the same time, the economy itself took a huge hit dropping like 10%. That 3% now looks like a 13% increase relative to the global economy. I know my numbers are a bit off because I don't have my statistics right here in front of me, but the idea is the same.

There was mention of a lot of people losing their jobs in the audio industry. The reason for this is more due to the computer recording market and now bands can get a mediocre recording of themselves for a one time fee of $10,000 in equipment (which is an insanely huge number). You could probably produce a good recording on $1000 worth of equipment too. Anyways, these numbers are pale in comparison to the amount of money it costs to rent a studio, let alone hire a soundguy...and then there's the costs if paying for post production and distribution. If you were the artist, wouldn't you rather spend $1k and be in complete control over the sound of your recording? As a sidenote, the only people in the music industry that see the money from sales is the record label. Everyone else in the industry is paid per hour or per job regardless of the recording (and I'm sure there are exceptions to the rule too). Ironically, it's in these people's benefit for music to be distrubuted freely because it increases the bands popularity which gets them back in the studio...which means more jobs for all those in the background.