Don't bother trying to resist. You WILL be the consumerist we want you to be! Don't even bother trying, there's nothing you can do to prevent it! You will pay for everything. If you want to relax and enjoy ANYTHING, you BETTER WELL EXPECT TO PAY FOR IT. PAY A LOT. You do not deserve to have anything for free, and you do not deserve to have any of your own money.

Why? Because a band who used to be about rebellion against the mainstream, and someone who claimed to be a gangsta, were afraid that they wouldn't have enough money to support their fucking DRUG HABITS, or SHOVE UP THEIR ASS, or whatever the fuck they do with all the fucking cash they get, so they decided to shut down what could, concievably be, one of the greatest things to ever happen to music.

Now, what they need to do is take away everyone's guitars. Because hey, what if somebody plays a riff from a Metallica song? By God, the band won't be getting paid! We've gotta break up every single garage band out there, before Metallica loses anymore FUCKING money.

In fact, they should just start selling CDs with no music on them. That way, no one can copy any of their music in any way shape or form!

What the motherfuck ever happened to "Never More Than Five Dollars", god dammit!

Take them out back and put them to sleep before they do any more damage. And honestly, after this, who DOESN'T think Dre deserves a bullet hole to the skull? Yeah, you're a real fucking gangsta. Because you can't truly be a hardcore nigga unless you're a MONEY GRUBBING ASSHOLE.

Actually, forget it, just end MY life so I don't have to hear about anything this stupid ever again.

------------------
But where is Gamera?

Anyways, I didn't mean it, really. I wanna save as many bullets as possible for Eminem.

------------------
But where is Gamera?

first of all, we must agree that they have all sold out. i believe that fact is pretty much universal to people who step back and look at the situation. so they sell out to get a lot of money. fine, i don't have a problem with that.

along comes napster. it gives their music away for free. it's copyright infringement. it' illegal. so is a lot of other stuff i do; but that's beside the point. so they shit their pants because they think they're going to lose money. they start the case, ignoring that their cd sales have gone UP since napster has been availible for download. they decide "fuck it, we're already rich, we don't need a free forum to spread our music and start a fan base. but we ARE protecting small bands that are trying to start up. really."

most of the bands that are involved don't have a lot of integrity that they say they are defending. "i've got a great idea. let's do almost a whole cd of remakes because we've totally run out of original ideas. yeah, great idea! we'll make a hell of a lot of money and not even have to write a song!"

dre and metallica decided to stir up some shit to create some publicity by taking a big company to court. they're stupid and naive if they think this is going to even be a small deterrant in our hunt for mp3z.

if its truly about the music, then you should be willing to support the bands by buying their music, and not complaining about them "selling out" or some shit. they gotta make some money, or they cant afford to do it. and just because a band is already rich is no reason to hold a double standard.

------------------
You start with a bag full of luck and an empty bag of experience. The
trick is to fill the bag of experience before you empty the bag of luck.

And I don't think Metallica has sold out. There are still many people out there that likes their music and SPENDING MONEY on their new cd's. Personally I think it has lots of good content, but it's all a question about taste. And if you don't think that Metallicas' music is good, why the hell are you downloading it then. That's fuckin' dumb.

And remember, Napster was actually judged buy the law-guys and not buy Metallica. Metallica just spoke their case.

What would you do if you had 10000$ of coins on a table and someone you didn't know came and took a handfull. I'd kick his ass. If he asked me I'd probably give him something, but the fact that he stole it would piss me off. It's MY money and I'M gonna do with it what I want.

And they aren't screwing their fans by suing Napster. If you were a fan, then you'd have bought the music. Not stolen it.

[This message has been edited by Kolben (edited July 28, 2000).]

Growing up and natural progression is not 'selling out'. Get it right.

------------------
You start with a bag full of luck and an empty bag of experience. The
trick is to fill the bag of experience before you empty the bag of luck.

I don't have a problem with a band who's making music because they want to make music. If they're making money off that, then that's even better. But Metallica is just about greed now. They're not in it so people can listen to their music, they're in it so they can make money. Incredibly excessive amounts of money at that, dammit. They don't NEED more money, but they demand it. They want to make sure they get as much as they concievably could, and if that means calling their fans criminals, then hey, why not?

To those of you who said it: You're exactly right, I wouldn't want people stealing from me either. But it's all in the REASON. Their reason is that if people are stealing from them, they'll make a small percentage less. The entire sale of CDs will not plummet. The fact is, they're monetarily bloated and still want more.

I'm not going to rely on statistics, because they're often exaggerated, BUT I did read that people who use Napster actually end up buying more CDs. I'm not saying should trust or not trust that, because I have no assurance that it's true or untrue, but I figured it would at least be worth mentioning.

Sorry for being just plain angry earlier. I don't actually release much anger at one given point in time, so when I do it tends to be either A.) incoherent, B.) overly violent or C.) both.

And to cut anyone off who might try to use this argument: If I were in a band, and I made it big, I would probably be a dick too. The exact reason I don't intend to EVER try to make it in a band, because that would be the last thing I'd want to act like. (A greedy bitch, that is.)

Also, on a final note, I DO in fact disagree with people who would rather have a 2 gig MP3 collection than support their favorite band. I DON'T disagree with downloading a few songs if you don't intend to buy the CD. It's like they said in the Kid Rock thread: It's a good way of fighting back against an industry made up almost entirely of bands who only make one or two good songs, and then make a CD of crap.

------------------
But where is Gamera?

Back to topic.. Metallica has every fucking right to do whatever they like with thier music. if they want to release 1 cd per year that costs 񘈨 so fucking be it. If metallica doesn't want its music distributed by napster then fine let them. They went through all the trouble to create it, its thiers to do with as they wish. if the RIAA doesn't want musicians who are signed to them to have thier music distributed by napster, then that is thier choice. Bands like Limp Bizkit that support napster who want thier music distributed can have it that way. Fuck.

I'm really neutral on the whole napster issue.. it can go or stay and it wouldn't make much difference to me.

------------------
When my flying days are over, and my death has come to pass
I hope they bury me upside down, so the whole damn world can kiss my ass

So who is raising the stink? Bands like Metallica and Dr. Dre, who have more than enough money. I know, that doesn't mean it makes it right to "steal" from them, but I have no sympathy for a band crying its head off that it won't have any money to eat because no longer sells ANY CD's because of Napster (a crock of bull)... no, sorry, I feel no sorrow for you. How many millions did you make from your "Live with the SF Orchastra" show, including CD sales, TV deals, tie-ins, etc.? Yeah, better watch out or else you guys will not have enough money to keep the payments up on your third porche....

And what is the difference between people using Napster in 2000 and people sharing music with tapes in the '80's and '90's?? Nothing whatsoever. It's the same old shit- the only difference is that it is more accessable. I remember the outrage over people copying tapes back some years ago- the RIAA was doing the same whining act about it. Funny, when was the last time you heard them say that tapes were a menace to the industry?

Anyway, none of this really matters. The recording industry is about to die, and hard, if they don't adapt soon. Somehow, I think they don't understand that Napster is just the beginning- as soon as they are gone, and the hundreds of new, independant services pop up, they are foobared- what are they going to do? Sue 75\% of their customers, killing off even more of their sales?

You see, the problem is that the recording industry as a whole serves one purpose- the middleman. Just like travel agents, just like sales reps... that was fine "back in the day", but these days, the internet is slowly killing off all the "middleman" positions. The purpose of the recording industry is disapearing- and instead of adapting, it's doing retarted shit like this Napster garbage.

I guess it's just as well that they disapear. Then maybe we can see CD's for บ or less some day.

(PS- If you have the chance, listen to the NOFX song "Dinosaurs Must Die" off their CD "Pump up the Valuum". It relates to the recording industry topic)

-FFox

------------------
ICQ: 436346

"A christian, an anarchist-slash-prostitute, figures out the true meaning of freedom. Not freedom like America, freedom like a shopping cart."
-NOFX

1)
Napsterusers are bitching Metallica about them abondonning their fans. Stop using this fuckin' dumb argument. They play free concerts, they produce a wide content of quality music. And about the SF orchestra. That was a damn experiment, and they said that from the start. I think that cd has lots of bad stuff, but then again lots of good stuff too on it.
And they aren't abandonning the fans by suing Napster. If you were a fan you wouldn't even have to worry about it, because you'd have bought their CD's as they came out. If you didn't I don't belive that you could call yourself a fan.

2)
Napsterusers are bitching about Metallicas' income. Their income is fucking huge, but that doesn't give anybody the right to even steal a nickle from them. They have earned their money. First of all. Producing music is one thing. That's difficult. Just to get it to sound the way you want. It takes time. It's a job. They sometimes work day and night to make their stuff work. I didn't say that they didn't like that, but it's a bit like having a job you're happy about. It happens to some people, and it doesn't mean that they are bad persons.
But other than working night and day, there's practice. Metallicas guitars are awesome. The basses are awesome. Both Cliffs' and Jasons'. And the drumplaying is awesome. And they made it nicely fit together. It takes a shitload of practice to get that good at playing, but not only that. They have to keep practicing, in order to still be as good at playing. It's hard work that equals what we normal people are calling a job. They HAVE to get paid. And they won't be if everybody is downloading their music.

3)
Metallica fans saying that they understand Metallicas' actions. Agreeing that it's maybe too much effort they put into it, but as you've all read: They think it's an interesting case, and if the law doesn't agree with them, it's fine.
If someone was stealing my stuff and I even knew who it was I'd sue them to hell. Regardless how much money I had. If they came up and asked me and if it wasn't much they wanted (like in this case), I'd probably give it to them. Then everybody would be happy about it too.

Another thing is that everybody is saying that Metallica is whining. LOL. Damn, I laugh my head off everytime I see it. Metallica is NOT whining. They are doing what they have to, to persue their rights, to actually control what's theirs. It's more a principle than it's about money. And who is actually whining here? I'd say the Napsterusers...

[This message has been edited by Kolben (edited July 30, 2000).]

1) Record stores don't inflate prices 150-200\%. That would be idiocy. If that were true, then CDNow (who has very little overhead cost) would be selling CDs for Ű and be making a killing. Record stores only make ū-4 per CD, and when you figure that the average price is ม, not ฟ, that means their original cost is more like ฝ-14.

2) It only costs about 5 cents to press a CD. We're talking massive production runs here, not CD-Rs. CD-Rs cost more because the materials are more expensive and they're made in smaller batches. the total production cost of an actual CD shrinkwrapped (including case, liner notes, and surface printing) is around a dollar, like jrh says.

3) Studio and production costs are generally the responsibility of the band, who, like jrh says, only gets several cents per CD.

4) The RIAA has nothing to do with manufacturing or putting artists together. That's done completely at the label level. The RIAA is just legal organization whose members are the record labels. All the RIAA does is a) contest anti-1st amendment laws, b) protect artists' freedom of speech, c) represent the labels legally, and d) foster price-fixing.

When two artists want to work with each other? That's the record labels. Manufacturing? Done by or outsourced by the record labels. The RIAA has nothing to do with any of that. They just protect the interests of the record labels.

I think it's fairly obvious that the record labels have had it too good for too long. The system is going to have to change now, whether it's to a subscription based service or a "free singles, pay for albums" system.

So, to some up:
Record stores don't inflate prices 200\%.
CDs only cost a few cents to make.
Artists are responsible for most production costs.
Artists only get pennies per cd, not dollars.
RIAA bad.
Artists cheated.
Napster good.
System must change.

-Gabe

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sithiee:
jesus christ you all are dumb. the riaa is not going down. the riaa does far more than just sit around trying to protect the rights of their artists. they set stuff up, and they make the damn cds. Think of the riaa as a giant secretary. they basically help out the artists when they need it. some artist wants to work with another artist? riaa sets it up. more importantly, they handle the making of the cds and such. if you all actually wanna get rid of the riaa, your asking each individual artist to start making every single fucking cd him/herself. then your asking them to package it themselves, and then sell it to stores, themselves. there are very few artists willing to go through that trouble. before you go saying that the riaa should go down, think about whos gonna take care of all the other things they do. dumbasses.

---

Ugh.. where to even start with this one. The RIAA protecting the rights of their artists?? The RIAA doesn't even represent artists. They are the Recording Industry Association of America. They represent record labels, who in the current system have near-unlimited rights, as opposed to artists, who have almost no rights: most don't even own the copyrights to their own music, they are forced to give them to the record label. In return, they can expect around 60 cents per CD which sells to the consumer for at least ฟ, sometimes as high as ย. The record stores don't mark the price up all that much, maybe ū. The CDs cost about ũ to produce. The record company recieves as much as ป.40 per CD, while the artists must split their 60 cents among the entire band. You tell me who's rights are protected in this system. Certainly not the artists'.

The RIAA sets nothing up except lawsuits and price-fixing. They do not make CDs, they only represent the labels that do. They do the dirty enforcement work, because if any individual label made such an unpopular move it would be easy to apply pressure against it through boycotts. But when the RIAA does it, it doesn't look like any specific label is being anti-consumer, so there is no easy target for opposition.

Your assertion that artists would have to make CDs completely on their own is completely without factual basis and defies all reason. It's just stupid.

In short, you make almost no sense at all. Please think before you post. And maybe if you knew at least some basic information about the case, that would help too.

Sithiee, ภ-17 is the average price for new releases in a record store. Go into any Tower Records, Strawberries, Coconuts, Sam Goodie's, Record Town, or other chain store in the U.S. and see for yourself. Sure, you can get them cheaper on the internet or from indie stores, but we were discussing stores, and the list I give above are brick and mortar stores.

And Bozeman is right about BMG. First of all, they own a lot of music, being a label themselves and the only music copyrighting agency around besides ASCAP. They make those CDs very cheaply because of that, as well as through contracts with other companies. That's why there was that whole debate over used CD stores: used CD stores for a while wouldn't take record club CDs because the artists never got their full share in the first place through these "special" contracts. Why wasn't the RIAA protecting the artists on that one? Because they don't protect the artists. They protect the record companies, and BMG, being one of the hugest, makes a gigantic amount of money on this scheme.

Sithiee, I don't want to start a flame war, but please get your facts straight before you post. And I'll thank you not to call the general population of this board "dumbasses", as it's an insult to cr0bar . Can't you come up with a better slur anyway?

-Gabe

now this will be speculation, but do stay with me. ill use smaller words so those of you with the smaller brains can keep up. lets pretend the riaa does not exist. now, as i beleive nobody stated, they keep the labels anonymous, right? ok, now that the labels arent anonymous, say one does something drastic, and you the loving people fight back by boycotting. ok. now the label has lost lots of money, and may very well have to let some, yes, artists go, because they dont have the money to support them. so, it looks like in the end, the only one screwed again is the artist. now *flash* the riaa is back. the labels are anonymous again. you boycott, and because you do not know which specific label should be targeted, then no specific company loses any large amount of money. no artists are let go! ta da! artist protected. note, i dont guarantee and of this to be exactly what happens, but it does seem to me that according to what youve been saying this is what would happen. yes, i know, i have no facts, but hopefully the riaa will not go under and prove me right. or would you love all your indie bands and such to be let go? note how i dont even bother to come up with an insult this time, i hope this pleases you.

------------------
< http://planetstupid.vfreak.com >

And now it's turned to a debate on the politics of the music industry.

------------------
But where is Gamera?

except "And I don't care what anyone says about digital recordings. At this point they are good for dance music, but try listening to a warm guitar tone on them. They suck for what I do. "

maybe she doesn't realize that CDs are digital recordings?
Oh yeah, and sithee, maybe you should read that..

[This message has been edited by Happyfish (edited July 31, 2000).]

Okay, here are some arguments... firstly, retail stores do NOT jack up prices 150\%... my friend works at an HMV where I live (do they even have HMV's in the US?? Anyway, back to the topic at hand...) My friend, being an employee, can buy CD's from the store at COST... that is the exact same price that the store pays the distributor... most CD's that HMV sells are about ย-ฦ CDN... sometimes they have sales on some of the newer, more popular releases, but on average, the typical disc at HMV will cost about that. And my friend usually pays in the order of ผ-ภ for these discs. so in other words, the price jack up is closer to 50\%, not 150\%... maybe things are drastically different in the states, but I doubt it.

Secondly, the argument that "Most smaller bands dislike Napster too, but they are just too small to be heard" is BS. In fact, most of the bands I really like (plus many that I don't) support Napster. One of my personal favorite bands, "Less Than Jake", have a napster logo on the bumper stickers that they give away at concerts, etc. They used to be a part of Capitol records, but they recently just left them to join "Fat Wreck Chords", which is probably one of the most successful truly independant labels out there (they carry mostly punk and ska bands).

Which is the third argument... Fat Wreck Chords does everything that the big labels do. They can meet the distribution requirements of every band they carry (and last I checked, they carry (or support) like 100 major and minor bands... some of these have really high distribution needs)... but all this time, they have remained committed to being about the music first, and their personal gain second. In fact, their samplers are always dirt cheap- they have "Please do not pay more than Ŭ-ŭ for this CD" written on them.

I guess that is what's really swayed me... I might have given a rat's ass for the pro-Napster argument if it weren't for the fact that I've seen some of the bands I love and support openly advocate it's use.

And by the way, I've bought AT LEAST 6 CD's because of songs I've heard on Napster, and liked.

-FFox

------------------
ICQ: 436346

"A christian, an anarchist-slash-prostitute, figures out the true meaning of freedom. Not freedom like America, freedom like a shopping cart."
-NOFX

As for the comment on her not realising CD is digital, it is but the difference is in the format. The only reason that MP3 is popular is because of formatting. You get a 'near' cd quality from MP3. The format uses compression techniques that leave out parts of the sound that we don't really notice when used on our computers.
Think about the difference in size between that top end HIFI and your sound card. I'm sorry, but a soundcard just doesn't cut it against a good cd player. Only then will you notice the difference between the original cd recording and the MP3.
Also, dance music is created primarily on computers and therefore is more easily transferred to this medium. She is pointing ot the fact that a 'warm guitar' usually originates from accoustic or analog amps, which does not 'convert' as easily to a compressed digital format.
It's barely perceptible, but I can tell a difference between a Minidisc (original) and a CD (original) when the minidisk is played through the same speakers as the CD. MD also uses a similar technique in its compression.
Think of when you burn an audio cd, 16 tracks fill the avg CD.
When you burn MP3's to the CD, you have 640 MB divided by the avg MP3 file size, say about 3.5mb. The math shows you that the two can't compare.

------------------
You start with a bag full of luck and an empty bag of experience. The
trick is to fill the bag of experience before you empty the bag of luck.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sithiee:
firefox, you misunderstood. i did not say that most small bands are against napster. you said that (or at least i got the impression you believed) all small bands were highly pro napster, i was just correcting you by pointing out that there are some who are very much against it.

---

Fair enough. I didn't mean to make it sound that I thought they all supported it, I just know that many do.

Happyfish, I agree. When I listen to a 128kpbs MP3 and the identical song on CD, I can notice only a slight improvement in the CD quality... and anything over 128kpbs sounds the same to me.

In fact, I have a couple super high bitrate MP3's (like 288kpbs) that I swear sound better than CD quality.

-FFox

------------------
ICQ: 436346

"A christian, an anarchist-slash-prostitute, figures out the true meaning of freedom. Not freedom like America, freedom like a shopping cart."
-NOFX

the reason mp3 can make such smaller file sizes is with the use of 'lossy' compression-which in contrast to loss-less compression- will, when compressing an mp3, throw-away data which the compressor determines is the least needed. did this make sense?

when you use a "loss-less" compression such as .zip, the data is compressed, but all the data is still there, it's just smaller.

with sound, the human ear can only hear 20-20k Hz, and mp3 compression will throw away the frequencys above the threshold of hearing(20k Hz) and as you go down the compression scale, it will start throwing away the stuff you can hear, just it's relatively indistinguishable. like 16k Hz and above.

well i'm kinda high, so i hope that was understandable. get back to me on that.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Happyfish:
In my humble opinion an mp3 at 128 Kbps or higher is CD quality as far as my ears are concerned. And smaller file size has nothing to do with it. You think if you use PKzip to compress a file that any of the information and therefore quality is lost? No. And MP3s can be encoded at higher quality than CD, (If you have a higher quality source) but the human brain would never be able to tell the difference. Now if you want to argue digital (solid state) amps vs tube amps that's different.

---

------------------
aventari
"this web page best viewed using a monitor.."

My point is, along with what Courtney Love said, that if you copy from a cd and compress it, you LOSE some of what you wish to record. This is inevitable. Whether you can hear it or not doesn't matter. The better your playback system, the more obvious the difference. The reason most people don't mind is that the MP3 is played back through a sound card (usually cheap) and cheap pc speakers. Even with expensive pc equipment (card and speakers) you NEVER get the quality of a dedicated cd player, amp and good audio speakers. That's where you hear the difference quite easily.
This is where you will notice the difference in 'warm sounds'.

------------------
You start with a bag full of luck and an empty bag of experience. The
trick is to fill the bag of experience before you empty the bag of luck.

128Kbps = CD quality
96Kbps = near CD quality
64Kbps = FM radio quality

160Kbps or greater= paraniod that anything less will sound like shit, or think you have super sensitive hearing, or a need to use up more hard drive space then necessary (if you think you can tell the difference it's probably in your head or you have a poor quality encoding of the specific track)

And about the 2.88 (or whatever) bitrate being better than cd's:
First of all it depends on the recording. The sound on a cd is so near perfect, that you actually can't hear any difference between that and "the real sound". If you think CD's sounds bad, go buy a new stereo or new speakers.
Secondly the MP3 compression algorithm will allways cut the higher and lower frequenzies. This means a loss of data and it's not just like when compressing a zipfile (which algorithm rearranges the file, removes duplicates and other generally known strings, that it can add back when uncompressing). When uzipping a zip-file you end up with the exact same file as before. Now when uncompressing an MP3 you convert it to wav/raw format which is streamed out of your output device on the soundcard. But this happens without the higher and lower frequenzies you removed at the compression. Frequenzies that you shouldn't be able to hear. That most people can is another side of the subject. The sound on the CD is infact in the same wav/raw format that is streamed to your output device, but has never been compressed and therefore lacks no sound. Now I ask you: What is the point of having an uncompressed MP3 (what it must be if it is as good quality as CD audio)? Why not just have the wav?

I think it should be called converting to mp3 instead of compressing. Because under a compression you do not throw away data that cannot be restored when uncompressing.

[This message has been edited by Kolben (edited August 03, 2000).]

Another issue with MP3's is the fact that they aren't always properly encoded- Although this is much less common today than it was a year or more ago, MP3's will sometimes have "burps" and "blips" in them caused by poor encoding programs or slow (or bogged down) computers doing the encoding. You can get utilities to remove these blights, but they won't always work...

-FFox

------------------
ICQ: 436346

"A christian, an anarchist-slash-prostitute, figures out the true meaning of freedom. Not freedom like America, freedom like a shopping cart."
-NOFX

And I think my computer's sound card sounds pretty damn good pumping through my crap little mini system/sub woofer computer speakers. Maybe I just have crap ears..

quote:

---

Originally posted by Happyfish:
[B]Okay all you guys that think CDs are better. [B]

---

Well, I think that on a pure data level, CD's are still better... it comes down to the fact, however, that in most cases, we can't really tell the difference. When this is the case, there is absolutely nothing wrong with MP3's. I never really wanted to make it sound like I thought they were crap or anything, just that they CAN have some drawbacks, albeit rare.

Actually, I have just under 2 gigabytes of MP3's on my computer (1.94 GB to be exact), so I definately think they are good too. Almost all of the ones at 128kbps or higher sound great coming out of my stock Altec Lansings that came with my 2 year old Dell.

-FFox

------------------
ICQ: 436346

"A christian, an anarchist-slash-prostitute, figures out the true meaning of freedom. Not freedom like America, freedom like a shopping cart."
-NOFX

Well...I know that my ears are good, but I would say that you CAN hear the difference between mp3 and cd's. I can in almost every case anyhow. Not that I don't like music in mp3, but I like it much more on cd's.

And now for the test. If you have the cd with "Led Zeppelin - Stairway to heaven" (the original), try to rip it and convert it to mp3. If you can't hear the difference you must be deaf. Generally everything with lots of hi-hat sounds will be degraded in quality.

But other than that, I prefer my music live. Specially when coming out of my guitar while the band is trying to keep up... :P

Kolben, about the "static" -- are you sure you aren't thinking of your computer's fan noises? I know I can still hear the fan in the background when playing music on my computer, which always annoyed me a bit... you don't have that background noise when listening to a stereo system, which is probably why some people are rallying against the computer. It may be subliminal, but it's certainly possible

And BTW, there are high quality sound cards that are better than CD quality (96khz or higher sampling). When you consider that a lot of music is made using computers (in music studios, not just techno), it's hard to say that sound cards are worse quality than the CDs that people make using them

-Gabe

However, I use Napster and have been getting mp3s since I've been on the net and I don't think it's stealing and I don't feel that I'm losing the artist any money. I'm not an idiot, I can understand that they may be a bit pissed when they find that people downloaded their latest release 200 000 times but they only sold 20 000 copies but even if there was no such thing as mp3 the band would still sell only 20 000 copies.

The songs that I've downloaded that I could have bought at a shop were songs that I wouldn't really care about buying unless I was loaded and could afford to get them. However, if I get the song and I like it, I'll think about buying the artist's album and if I really like it I'll buy the single anyway because I'm one of those 'vinyl's better than CD' people and don't think that mp3s sound very good.

Bands that I'm a fan of, for instance Prodigy, will get my money for their releases because I want to support them, I won't buy stuff from bands that I'm not a fan of. I suspect this goes for the people that downloaded Metallica's stuff too, they probably heard the song on the radio and under nornal circumstances would have just forgotten about it but instead downloaded it because they could. Metallica are wrong when they say that people downloading their music are crappy fans, they're not fans at all.

And who the hell would want to be? Metallica suck.
cheers

second your example about 200000 download and 20000 sold is dumb. you have absolutly no way to prove this whatsoever. the only way to prove this would be to take an exact copy of our world before it was tainted by mp3s, and then let it run its course without mp3s, and then find out the record sales then. that is the only way to truly find out. because a lot of people do download an entire cd they would have bought because they can get it for free. a lot of people also buy more stuff because they sample a cd. but again, you cant prove it until you have an untainted example.