Dr. Evil
12-07-2012, 02:33 PM
Whether you're a fan of Metallica or not, you know about the 2000 Napster vs Metallica scandal in which Lars Ulrich, the drummer for Metallica, lead the charge against music piracy. This struck a huge blow to both Napster and Metallica alike. Many people forgot Napster and many fans of Metallica became alienated by Lars' stance toward someone getting a $0.99 track for free. Many people had a point though. Should a multi-millionaire such as Ulrich be so angry that his music was being pirated when it didn't cost the band a huge sum of money? By this time, Metallica had 10 albums out, 5 of which had opened at #1 on the Billboard charts and remained there for many weeks. However, Metallica may not be so bad about free music. The news was broke yesterday that Metallica would have their entire catalog available on the popular music playlist service Spotify. The only difference between the 2000 Napster and Spotify? Ads are streamed on the free version of the app. The band gets revenue from the ads.
The questions I pose to you are this:
Is this a strict money and PR move by the band or are they honestly doing a service for their fans? Have they turned a new leaf? Do you believe that music piracy is as bad as the major labels make it out to be?
The questions I pose to you are this:
Is this a strict money and PR move by the band or are they honestly doing a service for their fans? Have they turned a new leaf? Do you believe that music piracy is as bad as the major labels make it out to be?