[reply][reply] Not on par with Metallica suing their Napster fans,
to be completely fair here, metallica became aware of this because someone had STOLEN a take of the song ‘i disappear’ before it was done being worked on and leaked it, they then publicly asked for people to stop sharing their work before it was finished/they were happy with it, people didnt listen, and then they sued the people sharing THAT song. and even then, it wasnt them as much as them attacking people sharing a song they didnt want to have out yet. the owner of napster, meanwhikle, had been making money off of the website and other people’s music. so once metallica did that, suddenly every other label jumped on it and started to crack down left and right. i still hold that what Metallica did was perfectly fine… they are all about tape trading, but that wasnt what this was, this was someone stealing and leaking a song, and then a bunch of people sending it around who werent supposed to even have heard the song yet.[/reply]
the person who stole it is to blame, NOT napster and NOT the people sharing it. come on, would you have stopped sharing an unreleased ministry song just because Al said so? i doubt it.[/reply]
different situation, if i knew th song would be coming out soon, YEAH I WOULD, but more directly, i would only share it with people i knew would end up buying it anyway, so NOT through some sort of free form napster deal.
i think music should be free, i have no argument there (fuck… all of mine is) but if an artist tells you to stop sharing their music without thier consent, you have to listen, or rightfully risk being sued. i see no problem there.