Death Magnetic

Anybody else pick it up? I think it is Metallica's best stuff in awhile..

I'm sorry. From what I heard it sounded like there same o'l crap with some new lyrics. Metallica has not come out with album sence And justice for all. Did'nt good O'l James get out of rehab... It funny becouse that why kick Dave Mustaine and went on to produce a much better band. If you want a really good metal album pick MEGADETH United Abominations.

I picked it and an older Black Flag compilation up before driving to DC/MD on Friday. Ended up listening to Black Flag more...

ignorant wrote: metallica.. haven't bought their stuff after the Napster freakouts... I make a point to not pay for any of their music now.

Wow. That's real mature and intelligent - you live up to your user name with every post you make. It just goes to show that you have zero understanding of copyright laws or economics.

Copyright holders must by law aggressively pursue copyright infringements or it is assumed by law that they are forfeiting copyright. That's one way things wind up in the public domain. Should Metallica give up their rights to something they created just so a bunch of whiny adolescents can steal their music? I certainly don't think so.

You know, I hate Disney, too, but that doesn't mean that I think they are a Manifestation of Pure Evil every time their lawyers send a "Cease and Desist" order to some vacation bible school that's using Winnie the Pooh and Eeyore on their sign. Disney paid money to buy the rights to those characters from their creator, and now they own them! They are required by law to protect their copyright, or else they give it up!

And who decides that Metallica has made enough money and should be giving their stuff away for free from now on? A bunch of whiny, broke adolescents? If you don't want to pay for their music, hope it comes on the damn radio, or don't listen to it.

ignorant wrote: actually I make it a point not to listen to their music..

That's your personal choice and I have no argument with that at all. It's actually the first intelligent thing I've seen you say. Keep up the good work.

deleted my earlier post cause it offended someone who misinterpreted my words.

ignorant wrote: please read my words and see if i actually said I pirated music. Or did you assume it? thanks.. good bye. If I don't listen to it cause I think it's crap.. why would I download it..

Perhaps you just don't say what you mean to say - or you try to weasel out of what you actually say when someone calls you on it. Let's look at what you wrote:

ignorant wrote: metallica.. haven't bought their stuff after the Napster freakouts... I make a point to not pay for any of their music **now**.

This clearly implies that you DID buy their music BEFORE the "Napster freakouts", and that you "didn't pay" for their music AFTER the Napster freakouts. It makes no mention whatsoever about not listening to their music.

So it's BACKPEDAL FAIL for you. And nice job of completely ignoring the actual point of my post. Got a reply to that, ignorant?

ignorant wrote: actually I make it a point not to listen to their music..

Ahhh, but that's not what you said at all to begin with. If you thought they sucked, why wouldn't you just say "I never listen to Metallica because they suck", instead of saying that you "haven't bought their stuff after the Napster freakouts"? Notice too that I said this was actually intelligent on your part.

ignorant wrote: Jeez.. you lose again.

[Inigo Montoya] Joo keep using that word. I don't think it means what joo think it means. [/Inigo Montoya]

I don't have time for your trolling.

done with board now.

ignorant wrote: I don't have time for your trolling. done with board now.

Ahh, the classic "I know you are, but what am I" defense. Well played, sir.

did anyone else see the "thread collapsed" on Duke's post?

I think it's happening on longer posts. It's annoying, and needs to stop.

It has nothing to do with the length of the post. Only the tone.

Edit: If you want to see what's in the collapsed posts, just click the header (where it says collapsed, and has the little arrow).

Tim Baxter wrote: It has nothing to do with the length of the post. Only the tone.

Is there an "Ignore" list that we can put certain users on? Because there are a very small number of folks who prompt me to use that tone, and it might be better if I could just turn their posts off. I've seen other forum software that allows this.

In the meantime, how 'bout that Metallica?

my exstent of liking metalica is to borrow some ones cd and rip it on to my computer.

tim, why did you tell us how to open the post, now i wish i hadn't

Iggy has a very appropriate screen name I think!

All in fun guys, all in fun! <-- lots o' smileys for the internet humor impaired

My roommate downloaded it about two weeks ago, before it came out. It is very good, and I usually buy CDs if I download an album and like it because I feel guilty, and I like supporting artists.

But I'm with ignorant. There is no damn way I'm ever paying for a Metallica album again. If they hadn't been such royal douchebags and sued Napster, I'd feel differently haha.

And don't get me wrong, I'm not some punk sitting in his dorm room that doesn't care about intellectual property. I'm a music recording major, my future salary will be paid by people who purchase, not steal, music. But what they did absolutely choked the music industry. Set this very cynical tone, and completely ruined any chance of people actually caring about new music.

And for the record, I've bought over 30 CDs already this year. Most recently the new Underoath and Slipknot CDs. Slipknot was a bit disappointing and middle-of-the-road, the Underoath is good, but probably only because it was produced by Adam D and Matt Goldman, and David Bendeth mixed it.

Twin_Cam wrote: But there is no damn way I'm ever paying for a Metallica album again. Screw them. If they hadn't been such royal douchebags and sued Napster, I'd feel differently haha.

I'd like to respectfully suggest that you do a little research into the nature of copyright law and protection of intellectual property rights. You might learn something important about it.

[edit] The above was typed before you added your third and fourth paragraphs.

I might argue that Metallica was required to sue Napster in order to defend their copyright. And while they may have angered their fan base and others, that's irrelevant to the question at hand.

I could also argue that the suit has done a lot of good, since it has caused the recording industry to rethink distribution methods. Even more importantly, it has prompted an entire generation of new bands to promote and distribute their own music directly to the public. I've got dozens of albums at home, legally acquired for free (or nearly free) from the bands that produced them. It's prompted me to find, enjoy, and support a lot of bands I otherwise never would have heard of.

Eh, required? Maybe. They certainly could've let their label do that.

I just haven't liked anything they have put out since ...and Justice for All. And Master of Puppets was by far their best stuff if you ask me. And Breadfan, I get that stuck in my head for days and I like it.

Twin_Cam wrote: Don't worry, I haven't taken five or six business classes, one of which isn't called Copyrights, Contracts, and Cash.

Noted in my edit above. You added information after I made my post - please don't hold me responsible for not knowing it before it was added.

Twin_Cam wrote: To me, this is the free market deciding what is valuable. Metallica pissed all these consumers off, so we're showing them what we think.

Boycotting is fine and I fully support it. That's exactly how the free market is supposed to work - you don't like the entity providing the product so you don't buy it. They either change their ways or go out of business if enough people feel that way to affect the entity. All well and good and I have no problem with it.

But not liking the entity does not entitle you to steal their product!

[edit]

Twin_Cam wrote: Eh, required? Maybe. They certainly could've let their label do that.

Does their label own the intellectual property being defended? If not, then the band had to sue as an entity, since they own the material copyright being violated.

Required? Not so sure about that. There's certainly no shortage of artists who have actively encouraged downloading and swapping copies of their music.

I suspect Metallica's problem was two-fold: First, they showed a stubborn allegiance to dying business model. Second, they did it in spite of their earlier "stick it to the man" stance. It left them looking like out of touch sellouts in many eyes.

Yeah, "stick it to the man" works until you become popular and are suddenly "the man"!!

Tim Baxter wrote: Required? Not so sure about that. There's certainly no shortage of artists who have actively encouraged downloading and swapping copies of their music.

As I said, I've got dozens of albums by bands that are giving their own music away via their own websites, their label's websites (if applicable), by mailing CDs upon request, handing them out at shows, or leaving them at record stores, etc. etc. etc.

The difference is that these are the bands who are distributing their OWN intellectual property and encouraging that distribution. They are like someone who gives away freeware programs that they have written - no problem. Free distribution can retain copyright - if the material is indicated as copyright - or it can be put into the public domain by the artist. Woody Guthrie among others did not copyright their material, but offered them to the world no charge for any use at all.

The problem occurs when people pirate work that is NOT authorized for free distribution or put into the public domain by the owners.

Tim Baxter wrote: I suspect Metallica's problem was two-fold: First, they showed a stubborn allegiance to dying business model. Second, they did it in spite of their earlier "stick it to the man" stance. It left them looking like out of touch sellouts in many eyes.

Oh, I agree, and that's a highly valid viewpoint. If they as a band pissed people off, then anybody is welcome to vote with their wallet by not buying Metallica's material. But they are still not entitled to steal the material just because they are pissed off at the band.

Tim Baxter wrote: It has nothing to do with the length of the post. Only the tone. Edit: If you want to see what's in the collapsed posts, just click the header (where it says collapsed, and has the little arrow).

http://grassrootsmotorsports.com/forum/grm/my-latest-diversion/2932/page1/

Is it something you select? Can I do it manually? Can I turn the feature off?

Edit to explain: It collapsed Per's post. Doesn't now. Insta-fix?

It's based primarily on the number of people who click the report button, vs how many vote the post up. I'm not sure why Per's was collapsed.

wasnt this thread about Metallica, I mean I really dont care much Metallica. But this has turn'd in to who said what.