Napster Claimants 'Liars,' Says Metallica's Attorney

More than 30,000 of the 300,000-plus music fans barred from the Web site of Napster, Inc., the online music sharing software company, want their access restored. Howard King, the attorney for the hard rock group Metallica, whose actions caused these fans to be barred from accessing Napster software, has labeled them liars.

Approximately 330,000 music fans were barred from the Napster Web site recently when Metallica claimed that the fans were infringing on Metallica's copyrights by sharing Metallica recordings among themselves and others without permission or paying royalties.

Earlier this month, Metallica delivered the names of Napster users to the company with the demand that these names be blocked from access to the Napster Web site. Napster complied on May 9. However, at the time it took the action, Napster gave instructions to the barred users advising them how to make a claim against Metallica if the users believed that they were wrongly identified.


In published reports out today, Napster says that it has received notice from more than 30,000 users of its MusicShare software stating that they were misidentified as people who had illegally traded Metallica's copyrighted music.

Napster says that under federal law, if Metallica does not take legal action within ten days against the barred users who said that they had been wrongfully identified, Napster would be compelled to restore the users to its Web site. Napster also says that it has begun to forward the claims of ousted users to Metallica's attorney.

Howard King, Metallica's attorney, confirmed to Newsbytes that he had received a "boatload of perjurious statements" from Napster.

"They're absolutely lying," King asserted. "There's no question that they're lying. Each and every one of them was offering Metallica MP3s for uploads."

King said that what Napster has done is to encourage 30,000 people to subject themselves to criminal liability. The basis for King's statement is that each of the claims from blocked Napster users is signed under penalty of perjury, meaning that the signers can be prosecuted criminally for perjury if they were found to have lied.

King said that while he did not intend to seek criminal prosecution against 30,000 people, he would be using their claims as evidence in court to establish just what "a joke" Napster's claimed copyright protection policy was.

The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) and rap artist, Dr. Dre, have also sued Napster on essentially the same grounds, claiming that Napster's software allows users to replicate and trade recorded music with others without paying a license fee.

Napster had contended that it did not make any copies itself, and that the company was not responsible for how third parties used Napster software. This contention was rejected, as a matter of law, earlier this month by the judge hearing the RIAA's lawsuit against Napster.

Asked about the correctness of Napster's assertion that legally it had to restore the barred names to access of its Web site within ten days if Metallica took no action against the individual claimants, King disagreed. He said that that would be the case if Napster were an Internet service provider (ISP), but that Napster's claim that it was just like an ISP was rejected by the judge in the RIAA lawsuit.

Napster was wrongly trying to "bootstrap" itself into the category of an ISP in order to be able to take advantage of certain protection given to ISPs by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998, King said.

Napster's attorney could not be reached for comment.

Reported by,

86 Responses to Napster Claimants 'Liars,' Says Metallica's Attorney

  1. myke says:

    After extensive research on Metallica's attourney, we have found that he has the intellect of a two-week old hamburger. We also have reason to believe that he was the one who informed Lars that Napster was a web site.

    • Kayler says:

      I completly agree. Its not like napster has really advertised itself everywhere has it? I heard of it by word of mouth months and months ago. And also with all this free publicity I'm sure Napster has tripled its users. So I'm kinda glad everyone is having a fit about it because all it does is give more support to napster. Oh and by the way more that 3/4 of my mp3's are cds I already own. Where's the money loss there.

      • Jim says:

        I started using napster not long before all this stuff hit the news, (by word of mouth) even after I herd of it I didnt bother to find out what it was, untill I saw an artical on betanews about colleges banning napster.
        I wouldnt be suprised if this media attention has added many more users to the napster community. btw why dont all those banned people just get new user names? (they probably have anyways)

      • KJ King says:

        they are entitled to their right to question, but on the idea of getting prosecuted for perjury just look at what happened to Mark Fuhrman and hmmm. Bill Clinton.

      • Rayge says:

        money loss is the scratched cds we aren't replacing by having the albums ripped into mp3's
        I'll never buy a cd more than once anymore

      • WhoCarez0 says:

        That is exactly my feeling, i own almost every cd on my comp and one of them was completely destroyed, but with napster i was able to burn a new one without dishing out $15 for something i already own

      • Planesdragon says:

        and Metallica, RIAA, or all the rest probably really wouldn't care about that... but it's the fact that there is *NO* limitation on the distribution that gets them.

        It's perfectly legal to archive your CD collection, and burn new CDs if the originals are destroyed... it's when you post those MP3s to the net that it crosses the line. (AFAIK... I ain't no lawyer, folks!)

      • GldDragn says:

        okay. I was banned from Napster for the Metallica songs. Now, as far as I know, they just searched for users that had metallica songs. Napster lists everyone that has them, but it doesn't display if the MP3s can be downloaded or not (if your max uploads = 0, no one can download them from you). All the mp3s i own, i have on CD (boughten by me; they are the originals). INCLUDING the Metallica ones. Yes, I have the mp3s. No, I'm not distributing them. No, I haven't broken any copyright laws by putting them all on my computer, so i don't have to change between 100+ CDs. As far as I know, if you own the originals and aren't distributing them, then you aren't breaking any copyright laws. correct me if i am wrong. I am sure there are others in my boat...

        now you are probably thinking, "well then why are you on napster if that is all you use it for?" -- I have a lot of cassette tapes too, and I don't feel like making a mono-mp3. If you listen to a lot of mp3s, you know what I mean. :)

  2. Zer0ith says:

    Im glad the media is having fun with this. Because I certinaly know that Im sick and tired of it.

  3. clinton says:

    Yay! The users of Napster will be getting access again! And Napster is an ISp, it provides an service on the internet (hmmm...almost fits the description of an internet service provider exactly). If the RIAA can take down napster, then I guess that everyone who has a server is going down. Why? Well, they are ISP's (They provide internet services), and they don't know if illegal files are being transferred over their network. Shut down your sendmail servers admins! Someonme might be sending pirated wares in an email! Turn off your webservers hosts! There might be warez sites on your server! Turn off your computer users! Why? Because you have commaercial software, and someone could crack your box and copy it! Maybe the RIAA will use this as a reason to shut down the entire internet. Oh, I have one more: Every single person that has made an MP3 from their legally purchased CD's -- delte them now! Why? Your not allowed to make digital copies of musak! Why? the RIAA says so! And, don't question what they say, because since they have money, they surely must be right. I mean, when has a corpratist group of monopolies ever been WRONG? When? You know the answer. I don't have to spell it out. The RIAA is juts about as good as M$ is. They wan't to take down the entire internet. If napster isn;t an ISP, then what makes anybody think they are an ISP? Well, they aren't. Why? Napster isn;'t an ISP. Why does this matter? Napster is the same as a dialup servie like AOL or earthlink. All they do is allow users to conenct to a server, and then talk to other clients. What does IRC do? hmmmm... What does the web do? hmmmm... What does AOl do? hmmmm.... What does tripod do? hmmmm... They all let users talk to each other and trade files! I can set up a website with pirated MP3's now. It would be up for at least a week. Then, I could move it. Napster doesn't pose a threat to the RIAA. Napster is not a webite! And, Lars, you have no right to use pirating to gain an audience, and then take those same people you encouraged to pirate to court. It;s not right. You condoned it, and now when it's convienient, you don't. Hippocrit.

    • Planesdragon says:

      Napster is NOT an ISP... an ISP connects someone to the net (ISP has TWO terms, not three... "Internet service.")

      mailservs, REAL ISPs, and maybe even webhosts are what was supposed to be protected... because they have a legitimate buisness purpose. I'd expect an ISP devoted to illegal activity (oh, "" which provided ISP only to folk who activly worked at cybercrime) to be shut down, regardless of the law. (Just my layman's opinion...)

      One more thing...

      "And, Lars, you have no right to use pirating
      to gain an audience, and then take those same people you encouraged to pirate to court. It;s not right. You condoned it, and
      now when it's convienient, you don't. Hippocrit. "

      Metallica released some early tapes to be freely traded early in their career... NOT The Black Album and most of the rest. I doubt that all 300,000 identified users were trading ripped MP3s from the old tape days...


      • balance says:

        Yep, Napster IS NOT AN ISP. If you argue with that then you're demonstrating an obvious lack of basic computer understanding.

  4. stx23 says:

    "They're absolutely lying," King asserted. "There's no question that they're lying. Each and every one of them was offering Metallica MP3s for uploads."
    Ladies And Gentlemen, let me introduce a man who knows nothing of what he talks of. When did napster become a 'push to server' technology?

  5. bahurd says:

    I think this could be resolved rather quickly if everyone just stopped buying Metallica music from the stores and stopped going to the concerts.

    Best way to fight back is through the pocketbook!

    • TEA-Time says:

      Exactly! They're charging $76 a seat for a Metallica concert here. They can take my UNBOUGHT ticket and shove it up their big green a$$!

  6. xfraskax says:

    What if all the people who downloaded the music own the CD? It takes just as long to download a song as it does to rip it. Maybe the people don't have a CD-ROM to listen to the music on their computer so they download it instead. Also, maybe the people don't want to pay for a CD-ripper so they just download it. Oh well, Metallic can kiss every Napster user's a**. 2 words: SELL OUTS!!!!!! METALLICA MUST DIE. P.S.-here's a way to get money Metallica, sue me for threat now. You need the extra money because who's gonna buy your CDs now?

    • Jim says:

      I completely agree!!!
      in fact I think I said almost the exact same thing in an earler artical on this subject.

  7. meheler says:

    This really disappoints me. What I mean is, I have nothing against Metallica on this subject, I have read their views thoroughly, not only on this Napster subject, but in previous interviews and such.

    What you have to look at is a few of the legal issues at play here. First off -- from my experience Napster has never been about "up and coming" artists; it was, and always has been, a place for people to trade mp3s of any type: legal or not.

    I don't agree with Mr. King's statement that every one of them are liars, based simply on the fact that.. well, if the downloadER has the CD of the song he/she is downloading, then that's all good and well. But if only the downloadEE has the CD, then both are violating copyrights by transferring these copyrighted songs for more than just backup purposes.

    Also, you also have to look at Napster. They are making money (advertising?) by providing a convenient meeting grounds for people who wish to do this. Plus they are trying to take advantage of a legal loophole to make all this piracy "legal".

    All in all I must say this is a very touchy subject. I love MP3s, and any time I have downloaded mp3s, it's so I can hear if there's any other good songs on a CD before I buy it. I think being able to listen to a bands CD online, before you buy it will help you filter out one-hit-wonders and general crap.

    So I will cut this rambling babble off and say Metallica rules, it's a shame they got caught up in this, mp3 is a great technology and someone is going to have to figure out what to do with it, and napster's days are quite likely limited.


    • blitzkrg says:

      So many other people have said this. napster does not have advertising in it's client (yet) weather they do on there web site or not doesnt matter, most people dont even go to the web site, they just load the client. so that whole napster is making all this money off of ad's is bull, maybe they are, but if that was there main goal, then they are going about it in the wrong way, again as most users just load the client, where there is no ad's.

      • Planesdragon says:


        Yeah, MP3's great! Wave of the future and all that--

        but it doesn't matter if Napster's making money or not. Crime is crime, and that's all that matters.

  8. rfk417 says:

    What Metallica and many other bands don't seem to realize is that napster is only one of many ways that people can trade these illegal mp3's, what will these bands do to other programs that are out there that are GNU (general user) programs such as Gnutella. Programs such as Gnutella can't even be touched, no one company owns or writes it, rather many people write the software for it. In the end there is really nothing these bands can do. Cut off one head and two will grow. The main thing is is that there is already hundreds of heads.

  9. TBB says:

    I still have not heard exactly how these 300,000 users were identified by Metallica and their attorneys. Was it by Napster usernames or by IP addresses ? Does anyone know ?

    As I said in a post before, trying to ban users based upon IP addresses when said IP addresses are dynamically assigned by ISP's is a faulty method for blocking users - it would likely lead to many people (30,000 or so?) being wrongfully banned for merely sharing an ISP with someone on the infamous list.

    Guess that would kinda be like being accused of a crime because you rode in the same taxi cab as a criminal did, but at a later date.

  10. bleedingpegasus says:

    Yup.... I remember the case of MP3 'bout 2/3 years ago. Severals big music companies were suing Winamp and trying to ban MP3. They failed.
    Now, it's only Howard King, RIAA, and few other insects making noise.....

  11. rballard says:

    Napster was wrongly trying to "bootstrap" itself into the category of an ISP in order to be able to take advantage of certain
    protection given to ISPs by the Digital Millennium Copyright
    Act of 1998, King said.

    ISP = Internet Service Provider

    Internet - Yes, Napster is on the Internet, pretty much all there is.
    Service - They are providing a file sharing service (in this case MP3)
    Provider - Yes, you need to connect to their servers to do this.

    Napster = Internet Service Provider

    Any questions?

    King needs to do his homework, and I doubt he checked each and every single name on that list in full. To make 100% sure that each and every one of the 30,000 names listed is INDEED one of the marked individuals. I could be wrong, in which case my pardon, but it just seems to quick.

    I understand Metallica's position on this issue. They do have merrit in their case. It is a piece of work they did, and why shouldn't people have to pay for it, think if where you worked, what you sell, all the sudden became free. This is taking the open source idea a bit too far. What next? Free gas? Free medical operations? (Might I add I won't be on THAT operating table) Free oil? Free sex? (No wait that was the 70s) My point is, it just wouldn't work very well, and they are in their right on this.

    I would however take this at a different angle, why not go after the end-users. I am sorry, but that's the way it should be, it seems insane but those are the law breakers, NOT Napster!

    • [SquaLL] says:

      "ISP = Internet Service Provider

      Internet - Yes, Napster is on the Internet, pretty much all there is.
      Service - They are providing a file sharing service (in this case MP3)
      Provider - Yes, you need to connect to their servers to do this.

      Napster = Internet Service Provider

      Any questions? "

      I think you are misunderstanding the term ISP. First off napster stated that they are LIKE an ISP not AN ISP. Therefore Napster not = ISP.
      ISP is an organization that provides the internet connection to you, napster is just a service on the internet, they do not provide the internet, just the A SERVICE. Now you can use your arguments in court, but courts and lawyers are very technical.

  12. rgrah says:

    first off metallica finds a list of users
    sends it to napster to ban the people
    napster bans them

    second, dr dre finds a list of users
    hasnt sent it to napster yet
    napster will probably ban them too

    I have a comment on that. Is this a popularity contest or what? Metallica (317,000) Dre (239,612). Is every artist going to do this???

    Now for the real part of the post...
    Ok, you have metallica and dre hiring people to search on napster for thier names so they can write them down and ban them. Now, if napster is so wrong in sharing files then does it make it right for the people dre and metallica hired to search for shared files??? How would dre and metallica know about napster unless they tried it themselves. Why would you go to all this trouble to ban people from making your songs popular??? Its FREE advertising in a sense. Whats the big deal about MP3s anyway??? Everyone knows the more illegal something is the better it is to do it. prohibition (ban on alcohol) EVERYONE STILL DRANK. Napster is the GR8TEST and no one should try to get rid of it because of being so GR8T.

    • [SquaLL] says:

      ""??? Its FREE advertising in a sense. Whats the big deal about MP3s anyway??? "" advertising...let's see...i have download the last 3 metallica albums in mp3 format and burned them on CDs. You call that free advertising?

      Yes, I do download lots of mp3s, but the difference between me and many other people is that I admit what I'm doing is not legal and wrong. Mind you, I don't care. My morals are different from other people's.

      • rgrah says:

        What i meant about "free advertising" is that i know when i want to add to my list of mp3s that if i see another song i want i get that too. If a metallica song or dre song that i want showed up because some dumbass doesnt how to name them right then i would get both songs.

      • OpCode42 says:

        I too have well over 2gigs of MP3's.

        But I own all the original CD's, so its legal.

        If I run Napster, I'm offering the MP3s in good faith, assuming
        that anyone who downloads them from me owns the original CD.

        If they don't, they are breaking the law. Not me.

      • [SquaLL] says:

        Good point

      • GezusK says:

        I'm afraid you're outta luck on that argument. got slapped for doing that very thing. They even had software that would check and make sure you owned the CD, and they still lost.

      • rgrah says:

        Mines legal too. I have ALL my mp3s on cd so i indirectly own the cd. Anyone hear about the pepsi contest offering "Customized CDs"??? Would they use mp3s PROBABLY.

  13. Neo8234 says:

    wtf is this?

    "They're absolutely lying," King asserted. "There's no question that they're lying. Each and every one of them was offering Metallica MP3s for uploads."
    OFFERING MP3s for upload?? if this dude had any real clue of how the software works, he would know that unless you REALLY know what you're doing, Napster will share all of the MP3s on your hard drive. Most people using Napster don't even know what sharing is, how it works, or even how the software works (like Metallica and their lawyers). Their files will be shared with out them even knowing it. That lawyer is just an asshole who is as greedy as Metallica is.

    • theye says:

      Of course, ignorance of the law is never an exuse. "Uh, judge, I didn't know it was against the law to kill my boss." Anyways, don't get me wrong, I'm on your side.

  14. thatoneguy says:
  15. thatoneguy says:

    woops screwed up on that last post.
    well anyway isn't napster just a dns type system( you request a file, website in the case of most dns, and it shows you where they are)
    isn't that what an isp is
    if this doesn't sound correct to you follow these steps
    1. find a pencil
    2. sharpen pencil
    3. ram pencil in right eye
    4. repeat step 3 with left eye

    • [SquaLL] says:

      But some people don't see it like that. Basically, they use percentages as arguments in court. I guess you can say that napster is like, simply put, they provide a search engine.. Work with me here (i'll use imaginary figures)
      let say that
      30% of yahoo users search the internet for illigal content.
      and 98% of napster users search the internet for illigal content.
      The courts will look at the ratio and say yahoo is nothing like napster.

    • asp_king says:

      Doesn't the los of 3d vision make that just tat difficult? :)))

  16. i-work says:

    Hypothetical Example

    I own a Gun Store.
    I claim to sell AT4 Anti-Tank Missiles, to anyone.
    When anyone asks to purchase one, I make a lame excuse
    saying they are out of stock. In fact I have a floor
    sample made of oversized cardboard tubes, but I painted
    it to look real.
    The cops here of this store I run, and arrest and shut me down.
    I am given a quick trial, but charges are dropped when no
    evidence is brought against me.
    See, I never actually sold one, so what law did I break.

    Its copyright infringement with the MP3's from Napster,
    but is it copyright infringement for me to offer MP3's...?

    The Net Police that compiled the list of alleged Copyright
    violators have stated how the "evidence" was gathered.
    Essintially they ran a script in Napster that "Scoured Napster
    with the aid of humans and artificial intelligence"

    They did queries to see what was available.

    They did not construct a program that monitored what was downloaded.

    Does this construct evidence of Copyright violation..........?

    • [SquaLL] says:

      Well that's the beauty of napster, it gives you a non ratio leech access to mp3s. According to the program description, if the filename is in the query list, then it is downloadable (unless of coarse the person has a firewall up or has already max users downloading off him/her) The only thing i can think of is that the file that is actually on the person's HD is not actually the same as the filename says, but that would be a little far fetched. Who would do such a thing?

  17. Psylord says:

    Anyone remember when they were going to charge postage for e-mail's?
    Anyone know how easy it is to submit a new rfc?

    Sure they can enforce postage for e-mail.
    Then I go and submit a new RFC that does the same exact thing.

    Anyone seen RFC 1149? It was submitted April 1st 1990 just to give you an idea of where I'm going. In other words anyone can do it.

    In the same way it's impossible to stop free communications on the internet it's impossible to stop sharing MP3's.

    MP3's have been around much longer than Napster, and they will be around long after Napster dies.

    Anyone else think napster should release source code? Let's see 500 Napster clones be stopped.

    Fuck you Metallica. Fuck you Dr. Dre.

    Bite my shiny metal ass.


  18. F1Racer says:

    To RIAA and others who oppose the mp3 scene:-

    Winamp and Windows Media Player offer the facility to play back this music format (mp3) that is mostly used for pirate music.

    Are they going to be targeted too? After all without them people couldnt enjoy their downloaded music.

    Why draw the line at Napster only ? Its not as if Napster invented mp3 format.

    Either target the mp3 scene as a whole or go back under the rock you crawled out of and leave it the hell alone.

    Good luck with DivX etc.. you cant win so sit down.

    • Planesdragon says:

      Winamp, Windows Media, Realaudio, and every other digital audio format has a legitimate purpose...

      Napster, which "exists only to facilitate the priacy of published songs" doesn't.

      Napster's getting ragged on because they're not doing anything to prevent copyright piracy... and RIAA / the artists Want the priacy to stop.

      Napster'll either get shut down (and open-source equivalents soon after) or they'll re-write their software to stop piracy (which is the trading AGAINST THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER'S WISHES, not just trading... Limp Bisket's songs would be fine [since they don't care] but Metallica's and Dr.Dre's would not.)

      • GezusK says:

        How could they shut down open-source projects? I could see shutting down Napster....since it uses central servers that all users connect to. But Gnutella would be impossible to shut down. There's no central server, and anyone could develope it. They'll never stop mp3 trading, just look at the software industry, they still can't stop the piracy of their products.

      • Planesdragon says:

        How could they shut down an open-source project?

        One at a time, my friend. Each and every buisness that uses it would get sued... any school or ISP that allows it would get "sued" to take if off-line. If all else fails, they could take a stab at the OS writers.

        Once the MP3 trading drops down to where it isn't worth it to stop it, they'll stop--but it's not at that level now, and since they're going they're not going to stop until they either lose soundly in court or it's back on the fringe.

        Imagine that Napster's lost in court, lost on appeal, and is out of buisness--and YOU get a summons to trail from RIAA. Chances are, your lawyer'd tell you to settle, and most folk would.

    • terminalshok says:

      Wouldnt it be funny to see RIAA try to take on Microsoft because of the new Midea Player 7 that is geared towards MP3. I would definatly watch that one on TV. ( that is) ahahahahahahahhaha

  19. F8 says:

    Can someone explain to me how napster is any different then like back in the day when people recorded radio stations on cassette? Or even now, how is it that I would be able to record Metallica via this radio player built into Internet Explorer without doing the same damn thing that napster is getting slapped for? Hell, I can even go to the public library and check out a Metallica CD, take it home and rip it. I think its bullshit and if someone has an email for the dumbass lawyers for Metallica or an email address for Metallica please post it.

    • LooseChanj says:

      The difference is that the record companies can take action. They can sue Napster because it all goes on in public. It'd be hard to get a search warrant for every bedroom in the world. That's all it is, greedy opportunism. They're pissing on the Napster parade because they CAN.

      • Planesdragon says:

        Actually, the difference is that the tape-trading was by Metallica's choice... and AFAIK, there are laws allowing the rebroadcast and recording of any radio broadcast...

        Also, Napster's a big enough target that the artists could no longer let it go as a "fringe" thing. This can hurt the sales of those who need them to live--and who can't afford to sue Napster themselves!

      • LooseChanj says:

        I was referring to any sort of copying. But if it's legal to tape and copy radio broadcasts, wouldn't that invalidate the copyright on most pop tunes?

    • d65 says:

      here ya go

      d65 banned: Banned by Metallica: See

  20. beta3 says:

    Sent her list of two people to Napster...

    Now, an elderly couple who liked Titanic can download from Napster!

    The world's gone mad!

  21. mrp- says:

    what pisses me off about napster and the lawyers who dont understand this, is that it forces you to transfer all mp3s you download.... they were trying to catch and ban people who were serving mp3s.. so im sure a lot of the banned users didn't know they were sharing , or couldnt help it, those are probably part of the 30,000 that are being called liars... i myself just move all mp3s i d/l to another folder after that napster doesnt know about. (and i share an empty folder, so no one gets mp3s from me!)

    • Agitatr says:

      Actually. YOU ARE ABLE TO DISABLE SHARING!!! all you have to do is go into the preferences and choose 0 for the max simultaneous uploads per each user. When you restart the program after doing this it will give you a dialog box that states: "You are currently not sharing any files. Would you like to enable the server?" you just say no. and there you are, no sharing. People are still able to view your MP3's but not download them.

      • d65 says:

        what pisses me off is that I don't like metallica, never to my knowlege downloaded one of their songs, or had one on my pc at all.
        and I am banned from napster, I even had my available for uploads set for 0 for a month before that. And..... either right before or right after their announcement(I am not sure because, not being a fan, I wasn't paying attention because it did not pertain to me) I fdisked my pc and was down for 2 weeks and only reinstalled napster 3 days ago. I want to know how they compiled their lists, there is no way they actually went through and examined 300,000 thousand lines of information to verify their claims, which brings me to the point, where do they get off calling me a liar.
        I won't pretend that I only dl songs I own the cd for, I agree with the previous poster, but to my knowledge there has never been a metallica song on my pc and I was being a prick and not sharing what I had anyway.

  22. PacFu says:

    I don't know if any of you read the article on what Limp Bizkit had to say about Napster, but Fred Durst said something to the following...
    "If the fans want to download our music on the internet, then let them. We are all for what the fans want"
    Why the fuck can't every artist realize this?? Isn't that what music is?? Entertainment? So if kids want to trade songs, well, fine. Think about it this way...
    the percentage of people who download whole albums from Napster as opposed to just people who download 1 song is about 1 in every 500 (educated guess). So how is that 1 album, or $17 dollars, going to effect Metallica?? I mean, they could live off of profit from the Black Album alone, which went 18x platinum.
    The reason beople never got busted for dubbed taped or radio in the past was because it's not CD quality. But in a truly digital age, can you blame us for wanting better sounding music?

    Why is Napster getting slammed for this?? If anyone knows IRC, go into an undernet channel and join room such as #mp3jukebox or #mp3tunes to name a couple. All you have to do there is type @find *Metallica* and you'll get a list of songs, all digital mp3's. So what are they going to do, eliminate all IRC clients because you can serch for songs?? This is all a media war and Napster happened to get caught in the middle. I agree, open the Napster source code, and lets fuck these assholes.

    • Planesdragon says:

      This isn't an issue about money... it's about copyright. I know that the concept can be difficult to deal with for an open-source junkie, but it's what gives folk like Metallica, George Lucas, and every other musician, writier, producer, or software developer a reason to do their creative job and not something else--like flipping burgers.

      The difference between Napster and, say, the old trading of tapes, is that RIAA's artists made the choice for the later and not the former. Metallica and Dr. Dre probably could never produce another song and live comfortably... but there are hundreds of other artists who NEED the income from CD sales to survive.

    • Planesdragon says:

      #@$... darn input form...

      Like I was saying, Dr. Dre and Metallica don't need to tour or make CDs... but there are a lot of artists who do, and both of these acts remember when they needed the income from record sales to eat.

      Music is art; if an artist wants to give his music away for free, that's up to him. If an artist wants to sell his music so he can eat / save the whales / buy expensive cars, well, that's up to him too.

      Oh, and it *ISN'T* fine if you already own the CD and download it--the recent RIAA v case settled that. ( was making copies and then letting folk with the CD download the MP3s... which the court ruled wasn't the same as the owner of a CD making a digital copy from their CD.)


      --Oh, and open-source doesn't invalidate copyright infringement or anything else... after Napster's gone, expect every person who hosts an equivalent software to get a simliar attack--and just being in another country won't make you safe!

      • FastLaneJB says:

        Well depends what country your in. If your in China say copyright isn't something they really worry about. Or a lot of middle eastern countries you can walk into stores that sell copied CD's. How about if Napster relocated their servers to Iraq? Lol

        Being more serious. Metallica claim that they have lost out on 10 million of sales. I doubt it. I download a lot of MP3's, but if you could remove all the possible ways I could pirate songs. Would I buy CD's? No. I'd rather spend my money on DVD's for instance. So sure if I'd bought all the songs I have then it would cost a small fortune. But I wouldn't do it anyway. Now sure there is probably some people that pirate songs who if they hadn't would have brought them instead but to class all of us like that is way off base. I'd bet most buy the CD's of the artists they really like and pirate the songs they like but wouldn't buy. Is that losing sales for the companies? No because they wouldn't have brought it anyway.

        My 2 pence.

      • stubear says:

        Well, that depends on how much the CD costs. At an average of $15 a CD, Metallica lost approx $5,000,000 in sales, assuming all 330,000 or so people would have bought one album. Metallica would have lost approx $250,000 in sales assuming that CD had 10 songs. Multiply this by someone buying all of Metallica's albums since the average number of songs downloaded off Napster was 9 songs (and Metallica has at least this many complete albums - including both Garage Days albums). This is a pretty hefty sum but this is also the maximum someone would have probably spent. Let's be reasonable and say they might have bought 3-4 albums. This is still $15,000,000 the labels have lost and $750,000 to $1,000,000 Metallica has lost. I don't know about you but when I have money disappear from my paychecks I get pissed. If I had this much money disappear from my paycheck I'd start suing too.

      • aridhol says:

        artists do not get the $15 a cd the get around 65 to 80 cents per cd sale they make their money from touring and cd's and radion and mp3's are just a medium to get the word out so people will go to the concerts and buy their mechandise your figures are way off

      • stubear says:

        Artists get, last I checked, 6.25 cents per song on an album. I said the record label charged $15 an album. If you reread my figures you'll notice that the musician gets $250,000 based on the sales they lost by 330,000 people pirating their album.

        While these figures are rough (but fairly close), they depict the financial reailty musicians face on album sales.

      • terminalshok says:

        isnt Radion that stuff you gotta check u'r house for every now and then? They make money off of that stuff? Whoa, I need a new job...

        Hee Hee!

      • Planesdragon says:

        *IF* napster fled the US, RIAA might still file suit. If Napster avoided the laws, RIAA would file suit against the ISP that connects their server to the USA... and the DoJ might even step in, or the state department. (And then there's "international copyright law"...)

        Of course, that's a rediculous idea. The folks at Napster are no more likely to emmigrate to try and flee this than Microsoft is... and I think that the legal problems are the same for the idea in both cases!

        (I actually had someone suggest that Gates & co. could emmigrate to escape the break-up... weird, huh?)

  23. gryphon says:

    If Napster is illegal because "allows users to replicate and trade recorded music with others without paying a license fee." Well, I can do the same with my CDRW! So lets sue Yamaha, HP, and all the other companies who make burners. Fuckin moron lawyers. Limp Bizkit is cooler than Metallica!

    • g10stpd says:

      Who I see posting mostly in this forum with idiotic and uneducated responses are dumb people that think Napster is an ISP and is the only way to get MP3s off the Net. There is also quite a few that also think there is some sort of logical reason for Napster to exist since you can download a song that you already have the CD of. Thats total BULLSHIT! Anyone with sense knows with a quality ripper such as Audiocatylyst that you can rip a song in less than a minute compared to the average 15 minute 56k download that most of you use. So why use Napster? To download the crap you don't have and can't rip! I am not saying Napster sucks and that I own all the CDs to the songs I have, but what I am saying is that most of you ARE FULL OF SHIT! I have 2gbs worth of MP3s on my computer that I have NONE of the CDs to, and I will not lie about it either. Just own up people and admit that Napster has no reason to exist except to make the ILLEGAL trading of MP3s much easier. So what if Napster gets canned? I will use mIRC with scripts like I did before, and if you people learn to use a computer and find out that Napster is not an ISP that is the only way to download MP3s, then maybe you to won't be SOL.
      Just my opinions.

  24. DigitalSin says:

    Noticed on CNN a few minutes ago Courtney Love was embracing the use of napster. Pretty interesting.

    • KingKoz says:

      I agree....Also, look at what Limp Bizkit has decided to do in conjunction with Napster. They have the right is entertainment and should be for everyone to enjoy. Unfortunately the recording industry wouldn't make any money of they gave away their product.

      I am not a Metallica fan but if I was, I know I would be calling my local radio stations trying to convince them to come film a peacefull demonstration burning Metallica CD in protest of their greediness. Sure, burning a few of thier CD's wouldn't hurt them a bit, but the symbolic publicity would hurt. (IMHO)

      I also do not blame Napster. Some of the other articles talked about going to the IRC and getting mp3's from channels there. I have been doing that for years. Usually 1 song at a time (56k downloads are way to slow) but since I have gotten cable, I can download several albums in the same time it took me to get 1 file at 56k. I imagine that Napster was just trying to capitalize on a booming business. There are MANY alternatives to Napster (some new and some old) that allow the same thing Napster does.

      Come on Metallica, Dr. Dre and the others....the time to change your ways/ideas is now.....its mentalities like yours (prolly brought on by your lawyers) that will continue to stifle the human population. Stop being so greedy and let your fans hear your music....or sooner than later, you won't have any fans.....or better yet, go back to your drug filled days and mellow out!

  25. mgama says:

    What if someone simply records a wav file of themselves talking, turns it into an MP3, gives it a name like Metallica_-_Hero_Of_The_Day.mp3 (possibly creating a ID3 tag for it) and allows it to be shared by Napster. How does Napster or Metallica know that they really aren't sharing a Metallica song? This user cannot be charged in court for doing anything illegal. The only "victim” is other Napster users who mistakenly download it.

    • stubear says:

      Are you 2 years old? What if a rock fell from the sky and bashed your skull in? Coudl you sue God? Are you going to keep coming up with ridiculous "What if's?" Buy a clue, Metallica isn;t going after the "What if's" and if this really did happen then the idiot who created teh mp3 deserves what he gets.

    • [SquaLL] says:

      who would do such a thing as to rename the file to a completely different description of what it actually is?

  26. ovitz says:

    Piracy is bad, and illegal. Most software/music pirates know this. But now, with the dawn of programs like Napster and iMesh, people just download and think their getting music for free. It's not so bad anymore. Napster is terrible. Up until beta 6, it MADE you share all MP3s, some of it copyrighted material on your hard drive. You had no option not to share this, and they're saying it's not their fault? Bull! I have several comedy CDs which I would like to share, but I don't necessarily want to share the MP3s of albums I bought and encoded. It's wrong to make me. The RIAA needs to shut Napster down so music piracy will go back to being only for those who know what they're doing.

    • [SquaLL] says:

      "with the dawn of programs like Napster and iMesh, people just download and think their getting music for free."

      Not to rain on your parade, but we are getting music for free :)

      And yes it's true, people who pirate know exactly what they are doing and how to use napster (and ppl who think otherwise are morons) but the thing is that ppl don't care.

    • terminalshok says:

      If I listen to a song I like on the radio, I record it onto tape the next time I hear it, my sister who lives on the other side of the country wants to hear it, so I send her the tape. Does this make me a criminal? If I record a movie on HBO, and give it to a buddy at work, does this make me a criminal? Why is it that if I want to hear a good song, and I can get it off the internet, then that is illegal? Sure I can goto the store and buy the cd, but I want to wait to buy to make sure that the rest of the cd is okay. There is nothing worse then buying a cd because it has a really great song on it and when you get home its not the same version as you heard and the rest of the cd sucks. (and you cant return it). The recording industry execs & companies make SOOO much money off of us and there is nothing we can do. (just my little rant & rave)

      • ovitz says:

        "Dubbed tapes" are not anywhere near the quality of MP3s. What you're basically saying is "I just walk into a record store, and pants a single. Does this make me a criminal?" Why the hell would you even say that? Are you ignorant! Justify it however you want to, but piracy is illegal. Eminem had a very good quote when he got pissed about his CD being released on Napster a week early, "If you can afford to buy a comptuer, you can afford $16 for my f---kin' album."

      • ovitz says:

        Gas is a rip off, too, but I'm not going to do a drive off!

© 1998-2020 BetaNews, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy - Cookie Policy.