Metallica Sued Napster For This?

from the pound-foolish dept

David Levine has a post up looking at Metallica's revenue streams last year. Apparently, the band made the vast majority of its money from concert revenue -- bringing in $22.8 million. It made $1.6 million from album sales. As Levine notes:
Hmmm...think it would make a lot of difference to the world if they lost the $1.6 million from the albums? Without copyright they'd only make $22.8 million from touring...You might almost think it would be worth it to them to give the recorded music away for free to promote their concerts...
Or, hell, give away the tracks and promote other stuff as well. Selling music directly (relying on copyright) is a tiny business compared to the opportunities elsewhere. And, of all the bands out there, Metallica should clearly recognize that.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    icon
    vivaelamor (profile), Mar 1st, 2010 @ 2:00pm

    Somebody has already pointed out on the article's comments that it does not mention anything about how much profit was made. Seems kinda important as I have no idea how much live gigs cost versus selling albums.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      vivaelamor (profile), Mar 1st, 2010 @ 2:07pm

      Re:

      On closer inspection of the Billboard site it appears that David should have said 'share of' when mentioning revenue.

      Interestingly Billboard also states: "Our figures do not include revenue from merchandise sales, sponsorships, synchronization deals and songwriter performance royalties."

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      cdavidd, Feb 11th, 2014 @ 6:10am

      Re:

      stupid

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    sk, Mar 1st, 2010 @ 2:22pm

    They are giving away their music for free... from the live shows.

    http://www.livemetallica.com/

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Mar 1st, 2010 @ 7:00pm

      Re:

      **by sk
      **They are giving away their music for free... from the **live shows.

      **http://www.livemetallica.com/

      Free? I pay for my tickets, don't you?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Rob.Etler (profile), Mar 1st, 2010 @ 2:24pm

    Nine Inch Nails figured this out. Radiohead did, too. Neither band is filling out welfare applications. Metallica should take note.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    wheatus, Mar 1st, 2010 @ 2:28pm

    I just cannot....

    ....Bring myself to be angry with Metallica for reasons that will indeed become clear to all upon listening to their version of Breadfan on vinyl at an ear splitting decibel level.

    Do I support their stance on Napster?... no but...I dare you to be mad at them after that breadfan shit rips your silly notions of metal, and music for that matter, to smithereens..

    bbb
    wheatus.com

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      DS78 (profile), Mar 1st, 2010 @ 3:06pm

      Re: I just cannot....

      I agree 100%. I made fun of them just like everyone else when the Napster thing was going down. But hey, I'm still a fan. I still purchased all of their shiny plastic discs.

      Their cover of breadfan is pure pwnage all the way around....

      smiles

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Mar 1st, 2010 @ 7:35pm

      Re: I just cannot....

      You realize they didn't write Breadfan right? They "borrowed" it...

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Urza9814, Mar 1st, 2010 @ 8:28pm

      Re: I just cannot....

      Huh. Breadfan has not at all damaged my notion of metal. I still don't think Metallica really qualifies. I mean not compared to Meshuggah, Deinonychus, Bathory...or hell, even Zao.

      The only way I would say Metallica was metal is if I prefaced metal with 'classic'.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Devilish Presley (profile), Mar 1st, 2010 @ 2:29pm

    More guff about huge bands, who spent / are spending time on major labels. Completely irrelevent to the plight of smaller independent acts trying to push forward with the "new model". Can we have less of this and more about how small bands - without rich patrons - can secure finance without selling their souls?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Mike Masnick (profile), Mar 1st, 2010 @ 3:57pm

      Re:

      More guff about huge bands, who spent / are spending time on major labels. Completely irrelevent to the plight of smaller independent acts trying to push forward with the "new model". Can we have less of this and more about how small bands - without rich patrons - can secure finance without selling their souls?

      DP, when I write about small bands, I'm told "this will never work for big bands." When I write about big bands I'm told "I only care about small bands."

      We write about what we find interesting -- which is a mix of everything -- because I believe that's the best way to FULLY understand these issues.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Devilish Presley (profile), Mar 1st, 2010 @ 6:07pm

        Re: Re:

        @ Mike.

        Thanks for your reply, much appreciated.

        We think your model will work for both big and small bands. The only thing we see as a slight flaw in it - is that the small bands have to get to a certain level before CwF + RtB becomes a viable model for them. That's why we dismissed the big bands, it will OBVIOUSLY work for them as you explained very convincingly re: NIN.

        If you can explain to us how small bands can achieve that level without selling their soul to an "old model" label - or giving away the rights to their "scarce goods" to a "new model" manager or label. We will then be certain that we "FULLY" understand this as well as you do.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          kryptonianjorel (profile), Mar 1st, 2010 @ 6:24pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Remember, there aren't a whole lot of small bands out there that are any good. I'm not saying that most small bands aren't good, just that if they are, they usually sell out to a record company, and then they become 'big bands'.

          On the other hand, there are plenty of big bands who aren't any good, and the record label messed up by signing them; these bands often stop being big bands, or just aren't very successful.

          I guess its time for some bands to admit to themselves that they aren't good enough to get rich and famous off their music. I'm all for music diversity, but some bands need to except that their music will never have a big following. Maybe they might even get a decent following, but people don't consider them good enough to go to their concerts or buy their swag.

          Small bands that are excellent, and that promote themselves via CwF + RtB type ideas will get known and will make money. This obviously won't work with small bands that are only good, just like the traditional model doesn't work with big bands that are only 'good', since every week we leave behind one hit wonders.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            mobiGeek (profile), Mar 1st, 2010 @ 7:17pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            and the record label messed up by signing them

            I think you will find that the record labels rarely lose anything on such deals...at least not until they have financially ruined those bands that do not pay back their debts...er..."advances".

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            Devilish Presley (profile), Mar 2nd, 2010 @ 1:10am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            @ Kryptonianjorel.

            "Remember, there aren't a whole lot of small bands out there that are any good. I'm not saying that most small bands aren't good, just that if they are, they usually sell out to a record company, and then they become 'big bands'."

            You are obviously still clinging to the old model, no small band that is good would want to get involved with a label these days. They risk going down with the old system.

            Nice try.

            Next.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Hephaestus (profile), Mar 1st, 2010 @ 10:25pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          "If you can explain to us how small bands can achieve that level without selling their soul to an "old model" label - or giving away the rights to their "scarce goods" to a "new model" manager or label. We will then be certain that we "FULLY" understand this as well as you do."

          Simple find some self promotion guru that has a couple hundred thousand fans on face book, find someone on youtube that has 1 million hits, find someone with a massive following on any social networking site, find a huge blog, find a musician thats has a big ... blog, and introduce yourself and ask if they could listen to your music and if they can suggest anyone that could help promote you. Then maintain that relationship by asking for guidance. What do you think? would your fans like this? etc....

          We are going back to the way things worked before record labels, you need fans, you need patrons. Find a bunch of mentors and promoters. It is really simple start networking. Start with people who are can be accessed and work your way up the food chain. Find artists from 10-40 years ago, studio musicians, back up singers, people that have dropped out of the business after a couple hits and ask ... "what do you think of this track? I just want your opinion. My friend told me it sounds like that track you did with (insert artist name here). Personally I dont hear it. What do you think?"

          If you have talent it helps. If you dont find someone to remix horrible sound of cats in a blender you consider good into something pleasant on the ears.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Mike Masnick (profile), Mar 1st, 2010 @ 10:52pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          If you can explain to us how small bands can achieve that level without selling their soul to an "old model" label - or giving away the rights to their "scarce goods" to a "new model" manager or label. We will then be certain that we "FULLY" understand this as well as you do.

          DP, I've discussed numerous less well known bands that have succeeded with this kind of model:

          http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091119/1634117011.shtml

          But the basic answer is that you start small -- just like any band -- and build up a fanbase, and do the same basic things at a more local level. But keep pushing and expanding.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            Devilish Presley (profile), Mar 2nd, 2010 @ 4:11am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            @ Mike.

            Once again thanks for your time.

            Excellent, hadn't seen the article provided by that link. Both Corey Smith and Mathew Ebel provide examples of what we are looking for. So you have proved your point as far as we are concerned.

            Glad to see Mathew Ebel has decided to ditch Sellaband and is encouraging his supporters to deal directly with him.

            Cheers.
            Jacqui & Johnny.
            Devilish Presley.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              Chill, Mar 2nd, 2010 @ 4:19am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Ok, I am starting to see you are a band, not a schizophrenic.

              Phew, you were starting to sound like Gollum.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                icon
                Devilish Presley (profile), Mar 2nd, 2010 @ 6:55am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                @ Chill

                We are Quadrophrenic, and one of us does look like Gollum....maybe both of us do, we don't caaaaaaare.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    AdamR (profile), Mar 1st, 2010 @ 2:31pm

    Funny thing is when they were first starting out they left the LA hair band music scene and moved to SF to connect with what they believed was their core audience and built a strong following. They had great live shows and gave away their music(LP’s). There was a big bootleg scene of their live shows and that only made them bigger and built a strong bond between themselves and their fans. They blew it all going after Napster, they turned beloved awesome band to a bunch greedy frakers. The cherry on top for me was on the Some Kind of Monster documentary showing King Ass Hat Lars sipping on champagne while auctioning some art and making million of what he paid original. Then had had the nerve to rally against Napster saying the people were stealing food off his table.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    herodotus (profile), Mar 1st, 2010 @ 2:41pm

    "I just cannot....Bring myself to be angry with Metallica for reasons that will indeed become clear to all upon listening to their version of Breadfan on vinyl at an ear splitting decibel level."

    Much as I agree with you on the subject of that particular cover, it can not overcome the disgust that must overwhelm any sane person upon hearing more than a minute of St. Anger.

    A shittier, more expensively produced album has yet to see the light of day.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    reboog711 (profile), Mar 1st, 2010 @ 2:58pm

    Wasn't it about control ?

    I always thought that Metallica sued because they didn't like not having control over their music.

    I seem to remember it being said that wasn't about the money many times [I assume by Lars].

    I respect their desire for control.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Rocker, Mar 1st, 2010 @ 3:10pm

    Well...

    What if I am an artist that does not want to tour at all? Am I supposed to make a living selling t-shirts and mugs online? Or are you going to tell me that I am no longer "allowed" to make money just by releasing records and doing nothing else?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Ryan, Mar 1st, 2010 @ 3:17pm

      Re: Well...

      What if I am an artist that does not want to learn how to play an instrument? Am I supposed to make a living selling t-shirts and mugs online? Or are you going to tell me that I am no longer "allowed" to make money just by sitting on my lazy ass and doing nothing else?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      PEBKAC (profile), Mar 1st, 2010 @ 3:26pm

      Re: Well...

      No one's saying you're not "allowed", they're saying that it isn't as lucrative as it may once have been, or even ever was for musicians, and you might want to investigate other avenues to make money off of your music.

      Technology has brought a sea change that many need to learn (re-learn?) how to surf.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Big Al, Mar 1st, 2010 @ 3:28pm

      Re: Well...

      Get yourself a normal pension scheme like everyone else...

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      McBeese, Mar 1st, 2010 @ 3:30pm

      Re: Well...

      Yes, Rocker, that is exactly what the members of the entitlement society will tell you here.

      They will steal your music and explain to you that it's your fault because anything digital is so easy to steal and because your business model is broken.

      I happen to agree with them that new business models are needed, but I disagree that that gives them the right to steal in the meantime.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Ryan, Mar 1st, 2010 @ 3:50pm

        Re: Re: Well...

        Actually, I haven't heard anybody ever suggest stealing. That would be incredibly stupid in the current age. What would be the point when we can just replicate the digital info of our own music to share amongst each other and happily leave the artist's copies for his own enjoyment?

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          McBeese, Mar 1st, 2010 @ 5:05pm

          Re: Re: Re: Well...

          ..."replicate the digital info of our own music to share amongst each other". That is copyright infringement and that is a form of stealing. You can't hide it.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Mar 1st, 2010 @ 5:08pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Well...

            No, it isn't. Thank you for continuing to hide from the dictionary, the Supreme Court, logic, common sense, and your brain.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            Derek Kerton (profile), Mar 1st, 2010 @ 6:44pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Well...

            McBeese,

            Dude, you totally fell for that bait. Ryan suckered you into making a provably false statement. Copyright infringement is NOT theft. Not according to:

            - tenets of basic economics
            - the law.

            "You can't hide it." Heh. You're wrong about this, and just need to look it up.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              McBeese, Mar 1st, 2010 @ 9:41pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Well...

              No, I didn't fall for it. This is like a site full of wanna-be lawyers. You use the 'steal' or 'theft' word and they all scurry around with their dictionaries countering with words like 'infringement' or whatever. I don't care. You take something that you don't have a right to take, you're a thief in my books.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                icon
                Joe Perry (profile), Mar 1st, 2010 @ 10:19pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Well...

                just because you consider someone who takes things they don't have the right to take a thief doesn't mean that's how the law perceives it. so how does your inability to understand laws and the difference between stealing and pirating make us "wanna-be lawyers?" if knowing the proper terms for law makes me a wanna-be lawyer then I suppose knowing art terms and history makes me a wanna-be artist, etc. Apparently I'm a wanna-be in a lot of things, seeing as I try to be knowledgeable about many topics.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                icon
                Mike Masnick (profile), Mar 1st, 2010 @ 10:58pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Well...

                McBeese wrote:
                I don't care. You take something that you don't have a right to take, you're a thief in my books.

                Thankfully, not in the book of the law of the land.

                Amusingly, of course, in this very same thread, McBeese wrote:

                If you don't like the laws of this country, work to have them changed, go somewhere else, or shut up.

                Time for you to take your advice. Under the laws of this land, copyright infringement is not theft. So, time for you to work to have them changed, go somewhere else, or shut up.

                At least according to McBeese.

                So which one are you choosing, McBeese?

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Michial Thompson, Mar 1st, 2010 @ 3:50pm

        Re: Re: Well...

        McBeese;

        VERY VERY well said, but you overlooked that little mikee m will also claim that you are the one that is a member of the "entitlement" society, and the goverment is only making it worse for you by granting you a "monopoly" on your very own work...

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Mar 1st, 2010 @ 5:27pm

          Re: Re: Re: Well...

          Michial Thompson - keepin it classy

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Mar 1st, 2010 @ 7:09pm

          Re: Re: Re: Well...

          McBeese;

          VERY VERY well said, but you overlooked that little mikee m will also claim that you are the one that is a member of the "entitlement" society, and the goverment is only making it worse for you by granting you a "monopoly" on your very own work...

          And providing you with a license called copyright to steal from society for your lifetime plus 70 years. Sad,sad,sad..

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        vivaelamor (profile), Mar 1st, 2010 @ 3:54pm

        Re: Re: Well...

        If you're going to bait me with bad use of the word steal, at least put something else in your post that makes a trip to the dictionary worth the effort.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          McBeese, Mar 1st, 2010 @ 5:22pm

          Re: Re: Re: Well...

          You need to run to a dictionary to see if I have the *exactly* correct use of the word steal? That is the kind of pedantic thinking that everyone here hides behind. Taking something that you aren't legally entitled to according to the laws of this country is wrong. I call it stealing, you call it whatever you want. I don't care what you call it. If you don't like the laws of this country, work to have them changed, go somewhere else, or shut up.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            really?, Mar 1st, 2010 @ 5:31pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Well...

            It's nice to see that everyone here is being cordial rather than sophomoric and juvenile.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            kryptonianjorel (profile), Mar 1st, 2010 @ 5:42pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Well...

            Honestly people. For the last time, stealing implies loss of ownership.

            Its copyright infringement, and that is all it is and will ever be.

            You can call it stealing, and I will continue to laugh at your ignorance

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            vivaelamor (profile), Mar 1st, 2010 @ 6:15pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Well...

            Silly of me to hide behind language. Your strategy of hiding behind nonsense is far more effective.

            Let me tempt you to the dark side by suggesting you tell us why your emotive use of the word steal trumps any logical argument as to why infringement is not equivalent to taking a book.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            Derek Kerton (profile), Mar 1st, 2010 @ 6:49pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Well...

            "I call it stealing"
            and are factually incorrect

            "you call it whatever you want."
            I call it copyright infringement, which has the benefit of being correct.

            Similarly, if someone starts a fire, I call it arson, not jaywalking. There are reasons we call different things by different words. It helps have a rational discourse with shared understandings.

            "If you don't like the laws of this country, work to have them changed"
            Agreed.

            "go somewhere else"
            I occasionally do, thanks.

            "or shut up."
            Not an option. And not really aligned with the spirit of the US constitution. But that's where you're at.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Mar 1st, 2010 @ 7:18pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Well...

            Except that nothing is being taken. Try again next time (perhaps after learning what words mean).

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Anonymous Coward, Mar 1st, 2010 @ 7:19pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Well...

            "If you don't like the laws of this country, work to have them changed, go somewhere else, or shut up."

            Oh, you mean...the laws that call it copyright infringement and not theft? I guess you should shut up and leave now. Bye.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        CVPunk, Mar 1st, 2010 @ 4:11pm

        Re: Re: Well...

        Whose entitlement or you talking about here?
        this guy wants to sit on his ass and just have money handed to him because he put some music on a piece of plastic.
        Sorry, but the music industry NEVER worked that way.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          McBeese, Mar 1st, 2010 @ 5:18pm

          Re: Re: Re: Well...

          Wrong. It's not about sitting on your ass, it's about creating music that may not be designed for bars and stadiums.

          Remember the Beatles? Yeah, them. They stopped touring because they wanted to keep pushing the bounds of creativity and the music they were developing couldn't be replicated properly in a live setting. They weren't sitting on their asses. They also limited the amount of merchandise sales to preserve the value of the Beatles brand.

          You may like The Jonas Brothers and Britney Spears, but many of us appreciate real music and we feel that artists should be able to get paid for creating it.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            Really?, Mar 1st, 2010 @ 5:34pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Well...

            "Remember the Beatles? Yeah, them. They stopped touring because they wanted to keep pushing the bounds of creativity and the music they were developing couldn't be replicated properly in a live setting."

            Really?
            I always wondered why the band broke up. and now I finally have the answer.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              icon
              Derek Kerton (profile), Mar 1st, 2010 @ 6:59pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Well...

              Wait, what?? Yoko was against copyright or for it now? I can't keep up.


              "Wrong. It's not about sitting on your ass, it's about creating music that may not be designed for bars and stadiums."

              ...and THEN sitting on your ass because you are entitled to a never-ending stream of money for work you finished years before.


              "You may like The Jonas Brothers and Britney Spears, but many of us appreciate real music"

              Maybe I do like Britney, maybe CVPunk does, maybe not. But how taste in music matter to the discussion?

              "and we feel that artists should be able to get paid for creating it." and so do we. No regular poster on the Techdirt board is against artist getting paid for their work and contributions. No one advocates stealing, and almost no regular poster here advocates copyright infringement.

              But we do advocate delivering ongoing value for ongoing revenue. We do advocate more fair use and public domain, and the incredible value they create. We do advocate the use and understanding of economics to issues of intellectual property and copyright. We do advocate the use of modern business models to reward and compensate artists. And we do exercise our right to free speech and to vote and work towards our goals.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            Sneeje (profile), Mar 1st, 2010 @ 6:50pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Well...

            I'm sorry, so I am required to buy their music even if:
            a) I don't like it
            b) I like it, but hate getting it on CD
            c) I like it, but hate having to buy multiple copies
            d) I like it, but prefer to listen to bands that are accessible and highly interested in their fans
            e) I like it, but don't find $15 of value in a piece of plastic
            f) I like it, but want to be able to share it with my friends

            Sorry, I choose no thanks. Oh, wait, you won't make any money--guess I'll just keep paying my taxes and your unemployment...

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, Mar 24th, 2011 @ 4:23pm

          Re: Re: Re: Well...

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Joe Perry (profile), Mar 1st, 2010 @ 10:10pm

        Re: Re: Well...

        I'm getting tired of people posting about how the frequenters of techdirt advocate stealing. first of all, piracy isn't stealing, there is a difference between the crimes. second, I've never seen a post seriously advocating pirating here. we're not arguing that we should be allowed to take your music for free and you should find a new way to make money. we simply argue that many people are pirating and it's almost impossible to stop so a new business model is needed to succeed. saying pirating exists isn't the same as saying that pirating should be allowed.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Mar 2nd, 2010 @ 8:23am

        Re: Re: Well...

        Entitlement blah blah blah... I want to make a living as an artist... blah blah blah...

        There's lots of stuff I like to do, but none of it is profitable, so I have a real job. Don't whine to me that what you really want to do might not keep food on your table.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      vivaelamor (profile), Mar 1st, 2010 @ 3:51pm

      Re: Well...

      On the contrary, I for one prefer artists who concentrate on producing new music rather than touring.

      What you have to recognise is that if you want to make more money out of it then you have to build a business model around it, whether that be merchandise or something else. Pointing to other peoples business models and saying 'I don't want to do that' doesn't help much, especially when you don't say why.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      AdamR (profile), Mar 1st, 2010 @ 3:52pm

      Re: Well...

      "What if I am an artist that does not want to tour at all?"

      Hmm so you don't want to do anything but try to collect and a check for doing what?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        McBeese, Mar 1st, 2010 @ 5:14pm

        Re: Re: Well...

        How about collecting a check for producing superior music that you might want to listen to instead of touring to sell t-shirts?

        Remember the Beatles? Yeah, them. They stopped touring because they wanted to keep pushing the bounds of creativity and the music they were developing couldn't be replicated properly in a live setting. They also limited the amount of merchandise sales to preserve the value of the Beatles brand.

        You may like The Jonas Brothers and Britney Spears, but many of us appreciate real music and we feel that artists should be able to get paid for creating it.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Mar 2nd, 2010 @ 12:30am

        Re: Re: Well...

        AdamR Moron alert...

        Writing new songs? Recording them? Trying out production techniques? You know, what musicians do when they're not touring...

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Mike Masnick (profile), Mar 1st, 2010 @ 4:00pm

      Re: Well...

      What if I am an artist that does not want to tour at all?

      What if I'm a writer that doesn't want to put up any of my content?

      See... you have to do what the market says. That doesn't mean you have to tour. In fact many of the models we've discussed (like Josh Freese's and Motoboy's) had nothing at all to do with touring.

      But it does take away one arena from which you can make money. That's your choice, but don't blame the world for telling you you picked a bad business model.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Mar 1st, 2010 @ 5:43pm

      Re: Well...

      Could it be that you over value your marketability ?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Derek Kerton (profile), Mar 1st, 2010 @ 6:40pm

      Re: Well...

      Well, are you a better musician than Mozart? Because even he had to work for a living and do concerts.

      Recording technology changed the options for musicians...but then other technologies changed the options again. And many examples out there demonstrate that the market for good music is pretty swell. Deal.

      The era you long for lasted a trivial portion of human history, heck, not even the full 20th century.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Adenai, Mar 1st, 2010 @ 3:17pm

    vivaelamor: this is the actual profit - this is the first billboard's money makers list that's based on the actual share revenue, not money generated by the bands / artists.. and btw.: Metallica earns almost $3 per CD

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      vivaelamor (profile), Mar 1st, 2010 @ 3:29pm

      Re:

      "vivaelamor: this is the actual profit - this is the first billboard's money makers list that's based on the actual share revenue, not money generated by the bands / artists.. and btw.: Metallica earns almost $3 per CD"

      Thanks, I caught that after I read the Billboard site too. At first I'd thought Dave had skimped on the numbers but it turns out the word had just been taken out of context so it was at least partly my bad.

      Btw, I have no sympathy for Metallica, time and time again they prove themselves to be morons. It is a shame because I grew up listening to their earlier albums (which I bought, more's the pity).

      What would be really interesting is what they make on merchandise.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    i ate my wheatus, Mar 1st, 2010 @ 3:23pm

    @wheatus

    ya its all clear that the radio stations and labels wouldnt even listen to them until the bootleg tapes we all had in the hundreds a thousands suddenly dawned on some greedy yacht building program to get in on it all.

    LIKE where would metallica be without guys like me
    SUCKING DICK on hollywood bullavard with all the other faggits

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    InternetSandman, Mar 1st, 2010 @ 3:29pm

    You should have bought a CD!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    wallow-T, Mar 1st, 2010 @ 3:34pm

    Rocker asks: "What if I am an artist that does not want to tour at all?" Pretty much, you're out of luck. No more Kate Bushes or Glenn Goulds. Maybe Glenn Gould can get grant funding.

    But before the early 1900's musicians couldn't make money on recordings either. There was a window of about a century, between the time that recordings were possible at all--with sizable capital cost-- and the time that anyone could clone recordings for zero cost.

    And I suspect the phenomenon of the non-touring recording artist was limited to a few cases from 1950-2000.

    It's not that different from the 18-month period in the early 1950s when the Big Bands collapsed -- suddenly what people were willing to pay for music would not support a dozen musicians in a group. The way that performers can make money is going to change as a function of the economy, and technology is one factor in that economy.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    NAMELESS.ONE, Mar 1st, 2010 @ 4:25pm

    @AdamR

    YOUR FUCKED you lazy asswipe.
    do you even get off a couch

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 1st, 2010 @ 4:36pm

    Y'know, I've said it before in some places, but whatever.

    Bands and record companies don't care whether they're making money; they care whether they're making *as much (or more) money as they are now*.

    Using this example, if Metallica stopped selling albums, they'd lose $1.6 million. Whether or not that's a lot of money compared to the $22.8 million they've made from live shows is irrelevant. It's $1.6m that they wouldn't have. They've gone from $24.2m to $22.8m

    You could argue that the promotion and good PR made from giving the music away would make them more than $1.6m in the long run, but that's not what they see. They see a definite $1.6m from sales or a *possible* (and risky) $1.6m+ from giving it away. In their eyes, it's not worth it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Nastybutler77 (profile), Mar 1st, 2010 @ 4:58pm

      Re:

      "They see a definite $1.6m from sales or a *possible* (and risky) $1.6m+ from giving it away."

      Are you sure they don't see it as, "We've made $1.6m from album sales. Just think how much we'd have made if it wasn't for those pirates!"?

      What I'd like to do is track their earnings from 1990 to 2000 and see what effect the internet had on their overall earnings, album profits in particular. Did they really see a significant dip in album profits starting with Napster's surge in popularity around 1998? If so did overall profits decrease, increase or stay the same?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Iva, Mar 1st, 2010 @ 4:39pm

    Metallica was one of the most expencive groups and the tickets always costs high price so it's not surpised me! Metallica rocks!!!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    anon, Mar 1st, 2010 @ 6:01pm

    An mp3 file costs 99 cents on amazon. PAY FOR YOU FUCKING MUSIC AND QUIT YOUR GODDAMN BITCHING. Slackers. Worthless, pathetic thieving trash. This whole wealth envy generation needs to drop dead immediately. The country will be far better off after they are gone.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Mar 1st, 2010 @ 7:20pm

      Re:

      What a convincing argument.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Mar 1st, 2010 @ 7:23pm

      Re:

      "Slackers. Worthless, pathetic thieving trash."

      You are referring to the RIAA and cronies, right?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Mar 1st, 2010 @ 9:20pm

      Re:

      There is more FREE music available than PAY music, in the whole wide world, at this very moment. True story.

      Not all .mp3 files are 99 cents. On some musician's websites, they give them away, for FREE.

      Seems like an awful lot of competition for those who traffic in PAY music, all that FREE music, being available.

      I know! Let's demonize human nature!

      "We're raising an entire generation of thieves, a society of stealers!"

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Another AC, Mar 2nd, 2010 @ 10:06am

      Re:

      No I won't. 99 cents is way too much. when I can buy a pack of 100 songs for a few bucks, then maybe I will pay for music again. Until then, the radio and my 10 year old collection of stupid plastic disks will just have to do.

      If you can't figure out how to make money while you give away your advertising, find a new line of work and stop whining.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Cynyr (profile), Mar 18th, 2010 @ 7:48am

      Re:

      so for a guess at a CD, i haven't gotten new music in years, 12 songs at an average of 3 minutes. so thats 36 minutes of music, is $12. A blockbuster movie new release on dvd is $15-$20(we'll use 20), so cost/minute on the CD is 12 songs at $0.99 per song(your number), thats $11.88/36 or, $0.33 per minute. A dvd, just the special feature, is around 1.5-2 hours (I'll use 1.5, well lets use 1.25 as the running times include the credits, and who watches those?) so we get $20/75 minutes, or $0.26/minute. Granted music does have more replay value than a movie usually. but still the cost per minute of music is higher, and thats not counting things like the bonus features on the DVD. The CD is more of a marketing tool for the band than the dvd is for the studio, no studio has the option of playing in the local bar.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Nate, Mar 1st, 2010 @ 6:42pm

    Tell you what, if you think Metallica shouldn't care about losing $1.6 million in record sales, how about you give me $1.6 million and tell me how you feel about it?

    People have such a strange sense of entitlement when it comes to music. Go out and spend the $15 on a damn cd, ya cheap bastards.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Mar 1st, 2010 @ 7:20pm

      Re: by Nate

      I'll keep the $15. and get a nice lunch. Maybe some radio station nearby will play thier "music" and I'll listen to that...

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Point missed ?, Mar 1st, 2010 @ 7:27pm

      Re:

      Way to miss the point.
      You probably do not understand why some bars have a free buffet during happy hour. Those bums ought to pay for their dinner, but no - they want a freebee.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    DJRazor (profile), Mar 1st, 2010 @ 6:50pm

    I'm so old

    I remember when they refused to make a video because it was selling out!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Tamara, Mar 1st, 2010 @ 11:57pm

    Look at Angels & Airwaves latest album. They've released the main album for free, and if you make a donation of 1 cent or more you get a free bonus track (a remix of one of their songs), and the physical CD that's released will have 30 minutes of music(continous) after the end of the main album. They've got the right idea.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Whisk33, Mar 2nd, 2010 @ 6:48am

    Copyright effects

    Wouldn't (or perhaps more accurately couldn't)a lack of copyright hurt their performance sales. I might be wrong, but it is copyright that prevents others from performing the same songs that they perform correct? So if copyright was abolished, it would likely have some effect in the ticket sales. (assuming other bands would copy the good songs and people would go to those bands in place of...)

    Yes there is an argument for the "originator" or "first" that would be more apparent once copiers are prevalent, but I think my example still holds weight, correct?
    The point I guess would be how we adapt to that change from the way things are done now and also to say that the current figure of 23mil from touring isn't a constant when copyright is finally dispelled, which is sometimes a notion that I feel is believed.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Nastybutler77 (profile), Mar 2nd, 2010 @ 12:58pm

      Re: Copyright effects

      I haven't heard anybody say anything about "abolishing" copyright. Mike and most so called "copyleftists" want to LIMIT copyright, not get rid of it.

      But honestly, why should Metallica care if someone else starts performing their songs (which often happens; they're called tribute bands)? It's (again) free publicity for them, and it's not like nobody would recognize if someone tried to pass off one of Metallica's songs as one of their own.

      Any band that tried to pass of the song as an original would lose credibility with their fans once the fraud was discovered.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Sos (profile), Mar 2nd, 2010 @ 6:37pm

    The Tea Party timeline - true story

    One teenager get a promo copy of The Tea Pary's "Edges of Twilight" CD form his dad who is a label promoter.

    Teenager takes it to school and a few friends listen. Teenager makes a copy of the album on tape.

    Friends play it to friends. More copies made.

    The Tea Party tours. By now over 20 friends from the one high school are into the band. All buy tickets to the concert. Concert is amazing.

    All 20 friends have been going as a group to Tea Party concerts, Jeff Martin solo gigs and The Armada concerts for over 10 years.

    Number of CD's sold: 0

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    bentf1 (profile), Mar 2nd, 2010 @ 8:58pm

    INSANE

    I dont understand why metallica cops so much shit.
    firstly it was about other people profiting from there music.
    It is there right to sue someone who profits from there music.
    Yes they are hugely successfull & have made squillions & they deserve it . they have provided over 100 million people with enjoyment and the way it stands there will be no other band like them in our lifetime.
    Who cares though if people download or buy it is what it is
    RADIOHEAD , TEAPARTY they are not even in metallicas league . Look at metallicas stage show and look at radioheads dont make me laugh.
    Metallica are the kings of metal and tough shit if you dont like it because they will be remembered for all time unlike most bands today .
    sadly a band needs money to tour and as long as band is small and there albums are getting downlaoded for free the chances of longevity will no longer exist
    keep downloading for free. Butt stop complaining about them making money . because in fact your saving yours

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Nastybutler77 (profile), Mar 3rd, 2010 @ 1:46pm

      Re: INSANE

      Wow. Where to start with this bit of incoherent drivel. First off show me where there are "other people profiting from there music." Because no one profits from file sharing Metallica's music.

      Secondly, no one is debating where Metallica ranks against other musicians, so this whole section of your rant is extraneous.

      Thirdly, Metallica's stage show is huge because they charge more than most other bands with smaller stage setups, and still make a boatload off touring, so downloading hasn't hurt that one bit. What's your point in bringing this up?

      Fourthly, what's a "Butt stop?" And no one is complaining about them making money. Did you even RTFA? Are you a complete moron, or just a partial moron? Can you even put together one complete sentence with proper capitalization, spelling, grammer and punctuation?

      I suspect you are either very young or developmentally dissabled.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    bentf1 (profile), Mar 3rd, 2010 @ 2:30pm

    Napstar did and so does every other file sharing site they charge people for advertising on there site dont they or do they allow people to do that for free . They make there money from that idiot . Are you that stupid .
    if you know anything about music and recording you would understand that it costs money to make an album .
    metallica doesnt need to worry about that because they have the money to do that. A small band who is just starting out doesnt need people to download there stuff for free as they need capitol to tour or to pay back there label.
    so my point is how about file sharing sites allow people to advertise for free.
    Maybe you have an issue because you cant bring yourself to pay for music
    It does matter were they stand in music because they were not the only ones who sued napstar . Since they are so big there the ones who have been targeted .
    People are complaining about them making money thats why its seems ok for people to illegally download there music .

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      cody, Mar 30th, 2010 @ 5:50am

      Re:

      So true. It's like, just because they make a lot of money, does not mean they don't have a right to protect their creations. And also, it was more that it was before it was even released, which has other possible adverse effects.

      I don't agree necessarily with suing fans, but the fact remains they had a right to do it, just as much as hollywood for a movie being downloaded. That said, some laws are a bit silly (making a backup copy for self, for example, last I knew is illegal - which is plain old stupid).

      Nevertheless, Metallica may have made some mistakes and may have made a crappy album (eg St Anger) but they have made a huge impact of the metal scene, made many incredible albums, put on great shows, and even positively changed many many fans lives (myself included). Let's not even forget the charities they participate in!

      People just want a scapegoat and by pointing fingers and blaming for something that you could blame the fans for even (right or wrong), well that is just ignoring the real issue and not helping anything or anyone. Hell, even back in early days (Ride the Lightning) they were called sell outs.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    cody, Mar 30th, 2010 @ 5:14am

    Well...

    Right. Obviously they make a huge income on concerts. Big duh if you actually are a fan or have seen the crowd (in states at least: 75 per floor, 50 per seats, not counting what ticketmaster rips you off for - and frankly, that is a good price for the quality of show and even compared to other bands [maybe not all but some]).

    I don't agree with the Napster issue but not one person here has never made a mistake, huge ones at that - Lars' biggest mistake was that, and he learned from it (there is evidence of this, not only in quotes but attitude). Example: he welcomed a leak for Death Magnetic (a shop in I believe France sold it early and then it got on Internet).

    The fact is also they were always pro-bootleg. They still are, and the reason they charge for the show downloads is maintanance (think of bandwidth they use). It's true they should not have sued fans, but if nothing else I guess they did do a favour to smaller artists and face it - someone would have done it eventually (hell, look at the pirate bay as one example). I for one am happy they provide shows as the venues here are very strict (Plus I don't have recording equip anyway).

    As for St. Anger. Blah. As James said: they needed to make that to get past their troubles. That's how it goes sometimes. I didn't really enjoy St. Anger but the tour was still awesome, and then Death Magnetic came ...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    mbt shadow shoes, Jul 12th, 2010 @ 11:59pm

    Everybody know mbt barabara black for Masai Barefoot Technology.The company that makes mbt maliza brown is Swiss Masai.This mbt chapa navy creates a natural, uneven walking surface and forces the body to use all the major and stabilsing muscle groups, thus training the whole body to move correctly.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This