More legal downloading fun

[Guest Shaved Bear]

Metallica Against Legal Downloading

 

According to blabbermouth.net, Rolling Stone reports that Metallica and Linkin Park are among the artists that are refusing to make their songs available for download via online music services such as Apple's recently launched iMusic Store.

 

The bands and their managers claim that their concerns are artistic, not monetary. "Certain songs might not fit on radio for one reason or another but are just as important an artistic statement," said Marc Reiter of Q-Prime, the management company that handles Metallica. "We refuse to kowtow to the fact that it's a singles market for downloads."

 

A source at Apple told the magazine that iTunes won't accommodate artists such as Metallica and Linkin Park because their requests go against consumer demand. "People want individual songs," said the source. "And we want to be consistent. We respect these artists' points of view, but we want every song available as singles."

 

The online services, whose success depends on their ability to offer as much music as possible, insist that artists who refuse to offer singles are contributing to the very problem they complained about during the days of Napster. "If you fail to make songs available legally, you're basically telling people to go ahead and download it illegally," said Matt Graves, spokesman for Listen.com, the company behind the Rhapsody subscription service. "You're shooting yourself in the foot."

 

~DSR

 

Source: "Metallica, Linkin Park Against Legal Downloading" blabbermouth.net

2 July 2003

411mania.com

 

well none of us are shocked at Metallica, but did Linkin Park forget how they got their record deal?

[Guest Choken One]

Did LP forget they are nothing but radio friendly pap? There is NOTHING artistic about them...butchering rap and rock in one fell swoop.

[Guest Smell the ratings!!!]

So Metellica is aginst people paying for thier music. An unexpected development indeed. Maybe the're afraid no one will buy masterworks like Invisible Kid.

[Guest The Metal Maniac]

O...k.

 

They don't want to release their music, for MONEY, on the web, because they want people to hear all their songs, not just a few?

 

A) If all their songs were actually, you know, GOOD, they wouldn't have to worry about this.

 

B) They say this like they've never made a video, had a song play on the radio, or sold SINGLES. (And yes, a single usually is more then one song, but you see my point).

[rising up out of the back seat-nuh 0]

Wow, for once I agree with Metallica. NO-ONE should pay to download their music.

[Guest Edwin MacPhisto]

Metallica's on an ass-backwards financial model. It's pretty clear that the band doesn't want to offer its music in any form other than a traditional full album or $6 CD single at this point, because as a major band they've probably got the most to gain from actual album sales.

 

What they're going to do is reduce their audience even more, because at a certain point people are just going to stop buying crap like St. Anger, because 2 or 3 songs just isn't worth it anymore. Silly, silly musicians.

[Guest jimmy no nose]

Do people actually use these pay to download services? I don't see the point.

 

On a semi-related Metallica/downloading note, a couple months back when Metallica was doing free hometown shows before their album came out where they each picked an opener, James Hetfield picked CKY to open the first night. He told them that the reason he heard them is because their producer's son downloaded their music, got his dad into it, then he got the band into it. They still fail to see that there can be a positive side to downloading music.

[Guest Shaved Bear]

Linkin Park also got a decent following before a hit single by going around chat rooms and telling people to download their songs...maybe all that time pretending to be angry has gotten to their heads

 

EDIT: typo