Perhaps Metallica and its vicious old-school audio assault can lead the record industry back to a consumer-friendly future with bonus packages and authorized downloads of such quality and value that unauthorized file sharing becomes immaterial, or at least reduced to a tolerably dull roar.
Not long ago this scenario would have seemed impossible. In 2000 Metallica sued the Napster file sharing service for copyright infringement and delivered to the now-defunct company the names of over 300,000 users – "fans" by another name - whom they accused of illegally making Metallica songs available over the network. Napster banned the fans from its service but told them they had a right to appeal the ban under federal law. 30,000 did appeal and the band either had to sue each one of them individually or throw in the towel.
Facing an absolute public relations debacle, a band that slogged its way to superstardom the blue-collar way with very little radio or MTV support through relentless touring, classic songs of sonic spite like "Creeping Death" and "One," and an flannel populist persona, relented and withdrew the suit.
In July of 2000, the band's drummer, Danish-born Lars Ulrich, appeared before Congress to testify against the menace of unauthorized file sharing, saying, "It's clear, then, that if music is free for downloading, the music industry is not viable; all the jobs ... will be lost and the diverse voices of the artists will disappear." Now the Metallica Vaults site exhorts fans to "Download, Burn, Share, Kick Ass."
To be fair, this isn't quite the contradiction it appears to be - Ulrich also said, "I don't have a problem with any artist voluntarily distributing his or her songs through any means the artist elects — at no cost to the consumer, if that's what the artist wants. But just like a carpenter who crafts a table gets to decide whether to keep it, sell it or give it away, shouldn't we have the same options?"
Well, perhaps, except there is a fundamental difference between a physical table, which can only be in one place at a time, and the bits and bytes of an MP3 file, which is infinitely reproducible without diminishing the original. But without delving too deeply into one of the hottest policy debates of the new millennium, clearly Metallica did compromise on their earlier insistence on control over all their material.
Article comments
1 - Jim S
yeah, now if they'd just release a decent studio album....
2 - Tom Johnson
Oh, Eric, you know what this will result in . . . hundreds of mostly illiterate responses griping about the last album and a few supportive comments about it, too.
Count me in as supporting - a good part of a year later I still think it's a good album. Not a great recording or mixing job, but musically interesting. Metallica fans have proven time and time again that they are some of the most fickle, narrow-minded, and hypocritical fans a band can have. It's no wonder they went in this ultra-heavy new direction - to shed the weight of these mindless, stuck-in-the-past dolts. More power to 'em!
3 - TDavid
I enjoyed the irony of Metallica releasing the MetallicaVault with that live material (which most of was very good, btw). I think, in fact, I enjoyed the live stuff they gave away better than the CD they did with the orchestra.
4 - Tim Hall
Wasn't it the time Metallica were at their creative peak (at least according to their old-school fans), the Grammy award for best heavy metal performance went to.... Jethro Tull.
5 - Eric Olsen
One the Grammys will not soon live down.
6 - Robert Brandt
It's the best album they've coughed up since Justice...but I think of it more like finding a thimble full of water after a few days stranded in a desert.
7 - Dave
Jethro Tull won for a combined category of Hard Rock / Metal performance.
8 - Robert Brandt
Was that for "Rock Island" or "Catfish Rising"?
9 - JR
Crest of a Knave, wasn't it?