Metallica Still Doesn't Get It: Forces Early Reviews Of Latest Album Offline

from the have-they-ever-used-the-internet? dept

While Metallica has been trying to appear more internet friendly these days, it sounds like the band still has a lot to learn. Representatives of the band invited a bunch of music journalists and bloggers to a "listening party" last week to hear tracks off its upcoming album. Attendees weren't asked to sign any kind of embargo or non-disclosure form. So, as you might expect, some of them went home and wrote up quick reviews based on what they heard. And that was the point at which Metallica representatives went around demanding that these early reviewers take down the reviews, claiming that the songs they heard were an early mix of the album, rather than the final cut. If that's the case, then they shouldn't have played it for journalists -- or they should have at least required a non-disclosure agreement. To go around forcing journalists to remove their reviews of music played for them by a Metallica representative is simply ridiculous. Not only that, but it wasn't even as if the reviews were bad. Last time we wrote about Metallica, we noted that the band was still suffering from the hit its reputation took in 2000 when it sued Napster and various colleges. Pulling stunts like this only makes sure that its reputation will continue to slide.

Filed Under: internet, metallica, reviews, takedowns

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

  1. identicon
    BTR1701, 11 Jun 2008 @ 7:21am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    > Your rights are not determined by the law,
    > but protected by it. As to what your rights
    > are, these are supposed to be self-evident.

    I don't know where you got this idea that people can't waive or contract away the rights guaranteed to them under the Constitution but it's completely false.

    People legally waive their rights all the time. Examples:

    The 4th Amendment to the Constitution states that citizens have a right to be free from warrantless searches and seizures by the police. Yet it's been a long established and legally recognized principle that I'm perfectly free to give consent to the police to search my home even if they don't have a warrant-- essentially waiving my 4th Amendment rights-- and any evidence they find of criminal activity can and will be admitted against me at trial.

    Likewise, the 6th Amendment guarantees one's right to counsel in a criminal proceeding. Yet if I'm arrested, I can waive my right to counsel and respond to questions from the police unrepresented. I can also represent myself at trial if I so choose.

    The 5th Amendment guarantees one's right to be free from coerced testimony against oneself, yet I can waive my 5th Amendment right and testify if I so choose, even if that testimony ends up convicting me.

    I have no idea why you think the 1st Amendment is any different-- that a citizen cannot legally waive their right to free speech-- but your position is not supported in law.

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter

Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Insider Shop - Show Your Support!

Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads


Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.