Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Music Media

Lars Ulrich Pirates His Own Album 672

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the i'm-sure-the-tags-on-this-will-be-friendly dept.
rudeboy1 writes "Lars Ulrich, drummer for Metallica, and long time opponent of file sharing admitted to 'pirating' his own album, Death Magnetic last year. 'I sat there myself and downloaded "Death Magnetic" from the Internet just to try it,' he said. 'I was like, "Wow, this is how it works." I figured if there is anybody that has a right to download "Death Magnetic" for free, it's me.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Lars Ulrich Pirates His Own Album

Comments Filter:
  • by eldavojohn (898314) * <eldavojohn&gmail,com> on Thursday March 05, 2009 @11:54AM (#27077799) Journal

    I figured if there is anybody that has a right to download "Death Magnetic" for free, it's me.

    Wrong. I'm going to apply your logic here and say that the real victims are the rest of the members of Metellica that worked hard day and night to make "Death Magnetic." You would have had to buy that in a store to get it and therefore the $18 ripoff that you avoided took money away from your bandmates who did not receive the fifteen cents they normally would have from that sale. On top of that, what about the profit your label would have made or the amounts payable to the RIAA lawyers? You have stolen something physical and real from them and they no longer have it. Those sound engineers at your studio will have to eat at Olive Garden tonight instead of Buca De Beppo.

    So Ulrich's logic is that he never would have paid for this album in the first place and therefore it's ok for him to download it ... yet the many file sharers that have no intent(or in some cases the means) to pay for it are thieves?

    • by Hodar (105577) on Thursday March 05, 2009 @11:57AM (#27077845)

      When you P2P, you not only take the data for yourself, you also help spread the data around.

      So, my accessment is that I was freely 'given' the Album directly from Lars. Therefore, as I was freely given the album anonymously by one of the original artists- I didn't steal it either. That is assuming, of course, that I would bother to download his 'music'.

      • by DragonWriter (970822) on Thursday March 05, 2009 @12:26PM (#27078267)

        When you P2P, you not only take the data for yourself, you also help spread the data around.

        That depends on the P2P network you use and your application. Its certainly possible to download off of some P2P networks with some clients without sharing anything.

      • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 05, 2009 @01:19PM (#27079173)
        What? But I was TRYING to steal his music! And now you tell me I may have accidentally got it legally via his own computer? Rats, I'm going to have to go download it again. I hope he's stopped seeding by now.
      • So, my accessment is that I was freely 'given' the Album directly from Lars.

        I doubt that's a correct assessment. Artists who sign with major labels often don't own the songs they will write or the recorded performances they will make during the time they're under contract. Without knowing the particulars of Ulrich's contract I can't be absolutely certain what legitimate copyright claim he has on "Death Magnetic". But there's a good chance Ulrich isn't a copyright holder on that album. Which means that c

    • I'm going to apply a little more of Lar's logic here and say that this is like Lars walked in a music store and shoplifted the CD. No one can disagree that would be wrong, would they? Only this is far, far worse because it involves the Internet.
    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by cellurl (906920)
      Filesharing hurts the middle men only period.
      Blockbuster, Netflix, Redbox.

      Filesharing is like a swimming pool in your backyard.
      Even though its yours, law requires a fence around it.
      DVDs are a public nuisance, too easy to share, like a non-fenced pool.

      The law should FORCE a fence on DVD's. Make them encrypt or something.

      Please....
      • by Kartoffel (30238) on Thursday March 05, 2009 @12:50PM (#27078673)

        Being the middleman can be risky. You aren't in charge of the supply of the products you sell because somebody else makes it and sells it to you (and other middlemen) You can't control the demand for said products, except by advertising. Note that the most successful retail outfits are those that either (a) own a small but very reliable market of consumers (specialist mom-n-pop stores) or (b) also dominate the wholesale and distribution portion (e.g. monster chain stores).

        Seriously, the very concept of wholesale-retail-consumer is obsolete for digital media. Music is not the same kind of product as groceries.

    • by meerling (1487879) on Thursday March 05, 2009 @12:19PM (#27078165)
      "Buca De Beppo" ??? What the heck is that? An Italian pedophilia clown?
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Kartoffel (30238)

      Furthermore, when Lars downloaded the album by P2P, he implicated himself in any future RIAA witch hunts. Now when the recording industry thugs go after their latest batch of victims, they'll have to include Lars Ulrich in the target list.

      If they don't target him just like any other poor slob on the internet, the RIAA stands to lose money. The industry works by strongarming regular folks who get caught downloading music, but when untouchable band members start clogging up the docket there's that much less

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by telso (924323)

      I figured if there is anybody that has a right to download "Death Magnetic" for free, it's me.

      Wrong. I'm going to apply your logic here...

      Actually, you're wrong; Lars is just displaying his mastery of logic, trying to fool people into thinking he's okay with filesharing. See, he said "if there is anybody that has a right to download 'Death Magnetic' for free....'" There (likely) isn't. So the antecedent [wikipedia.org] is false, so his statement is true.

      It's never a good idea to try to out-logic a pirate.

  • by FredFredrickson (1177871) * on Thursday March 05, 2009 @11:55AM (#27077811) Homepage Journal
    "I'm out of touch with reality, and honestly, we killed off our fanbase when we starting whining about napster... So, hey guys! Look at me!! I'm relevant again!!! SERIOUSLY!!! I download stuff too!!"
  • Just think... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Moryath (553296) on Thursday March 05, 2009 @11:56AM (#27077829)

    if he had had any clue BEFORE he went on his insane rants, we might be in better shape and the music industry might be in better shape too.

    Lars Ulrich has caused problems trying to stop new artists from entering the system and promoting their music and concerts. Oh wait, right, he's one of the few who got through the glass ceiling and has now spent the last 10 years making ever-shittier "music" [blogspot.com] while pulling the ladder up behind him.

    • So yeah, the article is blocked by work's web proxy under the category "filesharing / p2p".

      The summary says he went and tried to 'pirate' his own album.

      Is it safe to assume that this was just him trying to see how exactly the evil pirates are stealing his music, and that this doesn't represent any change in his position or the acquisition of some kind of clue?

    • if he had had any clue BEFORE he went on his insane rants, we might be in better shape and the music industry might be in better shape too.

      I think that's debatable and so does the article:

      Of course, Napster was dead and buried a long time ago but thanks in part to Ulrich, the destruction of the service led to the creation of many others ...

      For you see, once you assign a very real and tangible target to an intangible idea, you have something to work with. Someone to debate, someone to open dialogues with, someone to launch a campaign against, etc.

      I saw a short documentary on Anita Bryant created by a homosexual who was thanking her and devoting the video to her hate speech against homosexuals. Now, I'm not trying to draw a comparison between homosexuals and file sharers but rather the eff

  • by smooth wombat (796938) on Thursday March 05, 2009 @11:56AM (#27077831) Homepage Journal

    Since Lars and the band perform the song(s) and probably have some rights to the song(s), he can't pirate his own work.

    That's like saying a photographer who downloads a picture of one of his works from a gallery is pirating his work or an author who makes a copy of one of his own books is pirating his book.

    But please, let's not let common sense get in the way of people justifying not paying performers for their work.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Bromskloss (750445)

      Since Lars and the band perform the song(s) and probably have some rights to the song(s), he can't pirate his own work.

      Well, mabye they signed away their rights? In some jurisdictions there are some rights you can't sign away, but there might be others were you can sign away anything. And, as someone mentioned before me, isn't he depriving the other band members of their income even if the band as a whole has every right?

      Of course, I don't see anything wrong in that he downloaded it, I just try to reason about what the law might think.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      The assumption you have made is that the content creators hold the copyright to their works. In reality, many content creators sell their works to middle men.

      • by IBBoard (1128019)

        And it assumes that he is the only content creator. Even if he does still hold the copyright and hasn't signed it away then he isn't the only content creator in a Metallica album, so he's still 'stealing' the work of the other band members.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by mea37 (1201159)

          Several people have said this, but it is incorrect.

          If he holds copyright, then it doesn't matter who else also holds copyright on the same work. Copyright doesn't mean "entitled to a profit from every copy made"; it means (among other things) "entitled to make copies without anyone else's permission".

    • by eln (21727)

      He used the same file sharing services he has been railing against for years to download a copy of an album that was presumably being shared illegally. Furthermore, the article seems to imply that the file sharing client already existed on the computer at his house, which would mean he may well have downloaded other albums in the past.

      Remember, when someone does something they know is wrong, and starts justifying it by saying they were drinking with friends, and it was the only time they've ever done it, a

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by ari_j (90255)
      Lars is part of, but not all of, Metallica. I believe it's actually Metallica, Inc., or maybe a partnership. Also, there are likely intermediate parties such as the record company and so on whose rights are undermined even by one person who holds a songwriting copyright downloading the song. There are other rights in the final, released recording of a song beyond the songwriting credit.
    • by Farmer Tim (530755) <roundfile@mind[ ]s.com ['les' in gap]> on Thursday March 05, 2009 @01:04PM (#27078921) Journal

      Actually the headline is technically correct.

      Since Lars and the band perform the song(s) and probably have some rights to the song(s)

      Precisely: some rights, but not all. Metallica signed an exclusive distribution contract which grants complete control over distribution of these particular recordings to their label, and since the copy produced by downloading wasn't authorised under the terms of that contract it is indeed a pirate copy (note that if he wanted to give away a physical CD, it would be taken from stock and billed to the band as a promotional expense). The fact that he co-wrote the music makes no difference, except that it might also be a breach of contract.

      The same applies to published authors, BTW. That's pretty much what "published" means: your work in someone else's hands.

      Photographers are slightly different, as its relatively rare for a photographer to sign an exclusive deal with a gallery that extends beyond the duration of an exhibition. In general, they retain all the rights to their work unless it was commissioned.

      But please, let's not let common sense get in the way of people justifying not paying performers for their work.

      Common sense and copyright are mutually exclusive. That's why so few people understand it.

      (Disclosure: I'm a published songwriter/musician, formerly signed to Warner, BMG, Universal and a number of smaller labels, currently working in television production. I'm probably the last person who would try to justify not paying performers).

  • Well... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 05, 2009 @11:57AM (#27077839)

    Wonder if he was as let down by it as I was! What a waste of time+bandwidth

  • Easy one for RIAA (Score:5, Interesting)

    by houghi (78078) on Thursday March 05, 2009 @11:57AM (#27077841)

    He admitted to be downloading it. This means he was also uploading it.

    Either he uploaded it illegal and must pay 10 gazillion in fines, or he is not guilty and he was allowed to distribute it and this means everybody who connected with him did so with him agreeing.

    Most likely he did not have the rights himself and he can be fined as much as he ownes and then some

  • by AcquaCow (56720) <acquacow@@@hotmail...com> on Thursday March 05, 2009 @11:57AM (#27077847) Homepage

    F'ing Metallicops, go!

  • Heh (Score:5, Funny)

    by catbertscousin (770186) on Thursday March 05, 2009 @12:01PM (#27077903)
    Welcome to the dark side. We have cookies.
  • by HockeyPuck (141947) on Thursday March 05, 2009 @12:01PM (#27077911)
  • by Anonymous Coward

    By stealing this song, rather than purchasing it through retail, he has stolen revenue from AT LEAST the following people:

    a) The label
    b) The store
    c) Marketing
    d) Hauliers

    He is STEALING FROM THEM.

  • 2 words (Score:3, Informative)

    by pak9rabid (1011935) on Thursday March 05, 2009 @12:03PM (#27077935)
    Fuck Metallica.
  • He did it b/c he couldn't figure out how to get the Guitar Hero version onto his PC himself. He was fed up with the static-laden "loudness war" version that's on the audio compact disc and this was his only avenue.

    At least that's what I'd like to think as it's the funniest scenario in my mind.

  • by pak9rabid (1011935) on Thursday March 05, 2009 @12:06PM (#27077977)
    Master of Pirates
  • Wrong. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by whisper_jeff (680366) on Thursday March 05, 2009 @12:08PM (#27077997)
    "I figured if there is anybody that has a right to download "Death Magnetic" for free, it's me."

    Now, I haven't read your contract with the record label, Lars, but I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that, no, you do not have the right to download the music. Your record label probably controls the digital distribution rights of the music contained in that album and, unless you got their permission, you don't have that right. Remember the war you waged for the past several years? That's what was at the core of that fight.

    But, like I said, I haven't read your contract so I might be mistaken.
    • Re:Wrong. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by cabjf (710106) on Thursday March 05, 2009 @12:26PM (#27078265)
      Well, he did say if anyone has the right to, he does. Unless his label is a sole proprietorship, I doubt there is any one person from the label who has that right. So being the creator and performer, I would say he'd be at the top of this imaginary list of people who should be allowed to download the album for free. But the point is moot as there most likely is no one with the right to download it for free.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by LordKaT (619540)

      I think this bit of history is lost on the Slashdot crowd, but Metallica originally signed a typical "we own your work" contract. Around the time of Master of Puppets, Metallica sued their label and won their copyrights back.

      (there's a video out there, somewhere, of a younger Jaymz arguing with an EMI executive - long before they were swallowed up into Warner Music - saying "this contract shit is all about control. You want control? Well fuck you, you can't have any. If you want Metallica you lose control."

  • Boring. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by zippthorne (748122) on Thursday March 05, 2009 @12:12PM (#27078047) Journal

    I mean, if he'd had some insight or something this might've been interesting, but all he did was download his own album, call the process bizarre, and.. nothing.

    He could have commented on how fantastically easy it was and how that ease makes it a huge temptation and had some kind of ..thing to say.. about that..

    But it's just several paragraphs of fluff about how he gets together with friends to drink wine and click about web pages*, but only just now** tried to find out about something they've been railing against..

    *which, frankly, doesn't exactly sound very Metal to me...

    **and by now, I mean a year ago, of course...

  • Fuck you Lars (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Taibhsear (1286214) on Thursday March 05, 2009 @12:14PM (#27078089)

    You're a douchebag and a hypocrite.

    I haven't purchased a Metallica album since The Black Album and will never again. (Granted that was the last decent one they had...) You damn near single handedly spearheaded this RIAA anti-filesharing war. Out of spite and general boycott I do not listen to my old Metallica CDs, nor do I have any of them encoded to my computer. I refuse to go to your absurdly overpriced concerts. I will not download or share your music, not because of "piracy" but because I refuse to give any publicity to you or your whining old man bandmates. The "piracy" that you crusaded against made you what you are today. And here you are, yet again, showing what a fucking hypocrite you are and missing the entire fucking point of your previous arguments against file sharing. Peoples' lives have been financially ruined and had their education hampered or destroyed by your asinine crusade while you sit untouchable on your golden throne in your mansion. Fuck you Lars, and fuck you Metallica. Bite my shiney Metal-head ass.

    • by munch117 (214551)

      So, all those other bands on RIAA labels, who by their association contribute just as much to the RIAA legal budget as does Metallica, do you boycott them as well? I bet you don't.

      You only boycott the outspoken and honest. All the other weasels, who want money for their music as well, but play it strategic and don't say anything that might upset anyone, you're okay with them. They sue their customers just as much, it's just that they leave it to the record companies to do it on their behalf, so they don't

      • So, all those other bands on RIAA labels, who by their association contribute just as much to the RIAA legal budget as does Metallica, do you boycott them as well? I bet you don't.

        Actually yes I do [riaaradar.com]. Not only that but I don't even listen to the radio (unless I'm stuck in someone else's car). Haven't for almost a decade now. If it wasn't for "piracy" I wouldn't even know about any of the bands I listen to now (and pay concert money for, and buy their CDs {believe it or not}, and their merch, and tell other friends about who buy their CDs, concert tickets, and merch).

        You only boycott the outspoken and honest. All the other weasels, who want money for their music as well, but play it strategic and don't say anything that might upset anyone, you're okay with them. They sue their customers just as much, it's just that they leave it to the record companies to do it on their behalf, so they don't get their hands dirty.

        The bands don't sue anyone (rarely, if ever). It is the companies that own the bands' copyrights that sue. The bands comp

  • by Dmala (752610) on Thursday March 05, 2009 @12:15PM (#27078105)
    After downloading it, he actually listened to the album and was like, "Wow, what a complete pile of crap! These guys suck!"
  • Welcome to 1996!
  • Sure, but (Score:3, Funny)

    by C_Kode (102755) on Thursday March 05, 2009 @01:19PM (#27079183) Journal

    ...after completing that download and finding out how easy it was. He had absolutely no right to download the entire Slayer discography. :D

  • by KGBear (71109) on Thursday March 05, 2009 @01:26PM (#27079299) Homepage

    I'm a big fan. I have all of their CDs up until when they started nagging about Napster (ReLoad is the latest studio recording and S&M the latest live I own). I have not bought a single Metallica CD since. I have not downloaded anything either. I have never heard Saint Anger or Death Magnetic. I had the opportunity to see them in Denver during the Saint Anger tour and decided against it. Their whole attitude about electronic media disgusts me. The whole rebel act they put forward in their songs is just that then, just an act. When they don't understand an issue and so much as suspect it might hurt the bottom line, they side with the man. Bah.

1 + 1 = 3, for large values of 1.

Working...