Billionaire Sean Parker considers bid for Warner Music Group, the outfit which destroyed his music website after Ulrich spearheaded action
And justice for whom? Ulrich testifies against Napster in 2000
Metallica’s record label could soon be owned by the man who founded Napster, the website destroyed after Lars Ulrich and co went into battle against it.
In 2000 the thrash giants launched legal action against Sean Parker’s online service, the first major player in the MP3 download market. The case was settled out of court but involved banning 300,000 people from using Napster, a move which annoyed many of Metallica’s fans. Ulrich later admitted it was a badly-advised episode in his life, and he wishes he’d dealt with the situation differently.
Warner Music Group continued the legal battle and Napster was finally shut down in 2002. But Parker became a billionaire as part of the team which made Facebook successful – and is now poised to make a bid for the ailing record label, which is currently seeking offers over $2.5bn.
The 31-year-old is in talks with investors Ron Burkle and Doug Teitelbaum about becoming a member of a consortium deal. He’s also an adviser to the Spotify online music service, which has been unable to reach a deal with WMG to use its music catalogue.
Four other parties are believed to be interested in buying the label, which may also be attempting to buy EMI before its own sale. Details are expected to be revealed before the end of April.
Meanwhile, Metallica have warned fans to beware of a company which has announced it will produce 3D TV and DVD releases of the band.
Front Row Networks yesterday announced: “We have achieved the first step in acquiring the 2D footage and conversion technology. Once we have secured all distribution rights we will generate revenues for us and the artist.
But the band say: “Metallica owns and controls its recorded performances and Creeping Death Music owns the vast majority of any music embodied in Metallica Recordings. Pretty much any legitimate business would have contacted us to see how Metallica felt about it. Maybe these guys just forgot.”
This is the best news for years. I haven’t bought a metallica album for 11 years & I know many others that haven’t. They sold out for money when the majority of artists supported napster & free sharing. I still bought albums of music I got for free because I like to have something to put on a shelf.
It’s time the record companies give the artists rights to there own music just as all other artists own the rights to what is theirs then they wouldn’t have to turn yellow like metallica did, doing what the record company told them to do.
That’s just silly, I can acknowledge this is somewhat ironic, but the whole “Metallica sold out for money” thing is bullshit.
Piracy is theft end of story.
If you don’t like that truth, don’t pirate, if you can’t handle the fact that you are stealing, then maybe you shouldn’t be stealing.
It’s copying, not stealing. Learn the difference.
@kakarot IT IS STEALING… read the copyright law
“Copyright law”, written and enforced by state to grant monopoly privileges to its suitors, by trampling real property rights, like my right to own CDs I bought and use my PC and my internet connection to duplicate them and share them with whomever I want and whoever is willing.
“Copyright law” is violating actual law of private property, and is therefore illegal from a philosophical point of view.
Nailed it
“Illegal from a philosophical point of view”?/
My KelThuz/English dictionary translates that to “I think is should be illegal ’cause I don’t like it.”
to KelThuz
Its written to stop people like you preventing sales and destroying an artists revenue stream. Just because you bought a copy of an album it doesnt entitle you to make copies of it and give it out
Copyright law is a mess. The Supreme Court of the USA says as much as they have never upheld copying as stealing and theft. Check the betamax case and others.
I have read it. You’re wrong. Next?
KAKAROT YOU HAVE NO HONOR!! It is stealing in the eyes of the law
you idiot. its taking their album without paying….id call that stealing
digital Piracy really isn’t theft in a traditional sense, no, so it is not the end of the story. While certain interests may have temporarily swayed the war with ridiculous laws like the DMCA, there is still nothing wrong with it.
Unfortunately for all of us the music industry has its leverage with various governments, and they have campaigned long and hard to introduce maximum possible penalties for a harmless social activity. You would have to have been living under a rock for the past decade to honestly believe that anything that the music industry is just.
For example, the record industry has recently sued Limewire for $75 TRILLION DOLLARS! That is more money than there is on the face of the planet. This value was derived from projected costs of losses to piracy. Now, I ask you all, how could one program have accounted for more money lost to piracy than exists in the entire world? Simply it can’t, because the people running the record labels are liars that, coincidentally, are helping write the law.
So, I guess you can take that in a few ways. Either the law is unbalanced, thus invalid, or the premise is wrong and thus piracy isn’t really hurting anyone except for the people identified by the music industry as potential targets to exercise their laws.
bro, this is why metallica are hypocritical bastards and it is not stealing. it’s sharing. it was okay when fans made copies of their music to get them signed, and it certainly was okay for people to make copies when turning their friends onto the band that radio wouldn’t play. but once they got cash, they wanted more, and they forgot about the people and rock n’ roll.
from their mouths circa ’91.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shnQORDyREw&t=2m45s
Umm… guys….
Metallica hasnt been on a record label since 2008.
I don’t see how you can not view music piracy as a form of theft. You are getting a product which someone has put time and effort (and most likely their own money) into creating without giving any sort of payment to the artist. Forget about the the big labels, they have been exploiting their artists for decades, in my opinion they don’t deserve shit, and the amounts they try to sue people for is ridiculous, so I’m not defending them whatsoever. But surely the artists, who are putting in so much time, effort and money deserve something for their efforts. And if they don’t get anything for their troubles, where’s the incentive for them to make more? The vast majority of artists do actually need that money, it’s their source of income. If you would demand money from whatever service you provide, there’s no reason why you shouldn’t pay people for their services. Perhaps the music industry needs to catch up with modern technology a bit, but in the mean time, you are still stealing from the artist whenever you download their music for free.
Musicians can and should perform for their income, actually go to work on a daily / weekly basis like the rest of the world.
Is work in a recording studio not work?
Artist is not losing anything tangible when I copy & share his work. What he thinks he loses is this mythical “potential income”. Just like the corner shop owner would lose his “potential income” when I opened a competing store on the same street. Now – would you consider the corner shop owner suing me for “stealing” his “potential income” just? Wise? Prudent?
Of course not.
That’s what competition is all about.
Digital technology grants us opportunities we didn’t have back in the 19th century, when copyright laws came into being. Namely – we can duplicate any information with no costs, and distribute it with no costs either. It’s a dream coming true for any writer, scientist or artist – to reach the widest possible audience for very little cost, needing no middle-man in the process.
Artists mostly understand it (newcomers especially). Vested interests do not – and these parasites are the ones who fight the most vehemently against freedom of information. Their monopoly priviledges are about to go PUFF!
I appreciate what you’re saying about potential income – a whole lot of the people who download music are being opportunistic and would not otherwise have paid for the same music – but your analogy makes no sense. Someone opening up a corner shop on the same street as another one is not stealing from the original shop, just competing. Nothing illegal about competition, in fact that’s what the capitalist economy thrives on. This situation would be more like someone making their own music similar to an existing artist and selling it on the same marketplace, thus potentially cutting into the original artist’s sales.
But the illegal downloader isn’t making anything, or offering a service, they’re just taking stuff. This is more like going into the corner shop, duplicating all the items you want (with some sort of awesome duplication device) and taking these items, leaving all the original items sitting on the shelves, with no profit whatsoever for the vendor. If this is how people get their goods from the shop, the shop makes no money, has to close down the shop, and no one has access to the items anymore, paid for or duplicated.
If the items in the corner shop could be duplicated for free, there’s a pretty solid argument to be made that the corner shop shouldn’t be in business at all, or at least that it is in the wrong kind of business. In that situation, something like a fee at the door to come in and duplicate any and all items you want seems a much more reasonable business model. It makes little sense, in any case, to describe someone who comes in and duplicates items as having stolen those items, since the store still has them.
Copyright law is an exception to the First Amendment’s guarantees of free speech, and as such, it has a very limited purpose and scope: it is, according to the Constitution, only to “promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts.” In sum, the goal of copyright is to provide incentive for creativity that would not otherwise happen. There are important questions still to be answered about whether the current copyright system does that and there are strong arguments that it does not; in any case, talking about copyright infringement in terms of “theft” and “stealing” and “piracy” does nothing to further the debate because it derails it into irrelevancies.
The law and numerous revenue models are no scale to the symptoms the Internet has created. We’re in a situation where different generations will suffer because the older generations just do not get it.
Revenue models should change so that greed can not profit. An overall cost that a community of people contribute to
And I’m sorry, but copy and pasting a file is not pirating. The banks have ruined millions of lives – digital rights with small individuals are just an easy target.
All forms of entertainment when digitalised should be released to the public when a certain amount has been reached – very similar to kick starter.
From then on the product should be able to receive tips from people who believe the product surpassed their expectations.
I agree that the model should, and will have to change. Fuck the record companies, let the artist be paid more directly. But in the model you propose, do you really think people, given the option, will choose to pay for something they can get for free? I think the vast majority of them would not.
Lol. Still a lot of people getting the discussion wrong. It’s not a question of theft or not (I am a buyer myself); it’s the way it is. Reality. You may dislike the sun from shining and go to lenghts to stop it, it won’t make a bloody difference. Throughout history not-so-smart people have tried to stop development, no different now. Keep fighting digital distribution and lose. Embrace it and win. Simple as that.
And no, I am not a fan of not giving musicians what they deserve (quite the contrary; 90% of my non-essential outgoing money goes to music), but the very idea of keep going on the way things used to be is simply too stupid.
Bravo, I think you’ve hit the nail on the head. I still like to buy CDs, rather than download stuff, but lots of people prefer downloading. Maybe that’s the way it’s going to go.
Fuck your copyright laws. Art should always be free. If you make music because you want to be rich then you are a shit head. I hope this dude buys Warner Bros music and just turns the music world upside down.
Stef is accurate. The side note of everything I read, a majority stated one clear thing. Whether they share or not, they always end up buying the albums. If anything from various forums I have read, along with all my personal friends RL and online, sharing has encouraged sales of albums. It freely promotes the music and allows ppl to get a proper and desired preview of the album, which in turn leads them to buying it, more often than not.
For many ppl, 30+ and even some younger, a snip of music, appearance and name of band, standard advertising and even a standing history of a band’s success, no longer sells albums. The actual song(s) that are on the album, the consumer is interested in buying, is what will sell the album. Therefore it is very nice to be able to grab some share files of some of the songs to ensure, it is up to expectations, since we all know once an album has been purchased and opened, it is not returnable.
There are some older bands, I used to love, that I have now lost interest in their direction. There are also new bands, no one knows anything about yet and even the name of the band is off putting, who’s music I am really loving. I wouldn’t know these things, if it were not for sharing.
[...] Story by Rock News Desk [...]
It is not stealing, it is copying. Yes, copying may lead to a lower income for artists, but SO WHAT? It is not a fundamental right for artists to make money. The world will still go round without artists making the money they used to make. Music is mostly for entertainment. Are you worried that people will not be able to entertain themselves because of this?
I forgot to mention, in addition to entertainment, the reason why people demand art,music,movies,…etc is because it is a creative expression of a certain ideas, that can give you good feelings and motivate you to look at things in different ways. So, it definitely has a useful purpose other than just entertainment. But, copying will not make this go away! Look at YouTube. It is full of people creating art for free, and expressing their ideas freely.
I understand that artists who worked hard expecting money will be pissed off. But, this is life. If there is no demand for what you do, then change what you do. Don’t ruin the fundamental right of everyone else to freely exchange information.
[...] y según dicen Warner Music Group quiere 2,500 millones de dólares por la transacción y ya el jefe de Napster esta en negociaciones por conseguir a la compañía disquera aunque no son los únicos interesados en comprar.Metalica es dueño de su musica y previamente [...]
Karma. It is a bitch.
But I haven’t given Lars any of my money since 2000, and I never will again. So it doesn’t matter of Sean buys out the label, because Metallica will never come through my speakers again.
A person has a right to get payed for their talents…. copying and stealing are different but there completely different depending on how the owner wants it to be used
If the owner wants everyone to know about it then its copying
If they don’t its stealing
Get that through your thick skulls
And who cares if you think they sold out….i’m pretty sure they’d be doing the same thing now if they weren’t being payed They just enjoy entertaining people
Also, i think you can think about it more easily in terms of books and literature. So say a writer prints a book You can’t just go copy it and use it for yourself! its plagiarism! its the exact same thing!
Plagiarism is when you present the book as your own work.
Sean Parker is a smart guy.
As a card carrying ASCAP member and someone who has relied on a paycheck from the material I have created to do things like feed myself and pay my rent, I have to say YES it is stealing! How could you possibly think it isn’t!?
Would you think it was ok for someone to duplicate whatever specific product or service you generate for a living, and then give it away for free, essentially taking money out of your pocket? Why is the work that I do considered any less valuable than what any of you do? Because I chose to make a living as writer (and by the way, I DO work every day) I should work without being compensated?
Artists rarely write 100% of their music; so think of the songwriter with a family to feed before you say it isn’t stealing.
This is an argument for why copyright infringement is (and should be in some instances) punishable by law. It is, however, simply not an argument that copyright infringement is theft.
There is a difference between literally taking money out of your pocket—money that, in other words, already belongs to you—and preventing you from getting money that you believe you deserve, which is what is actually happening. It may seem a small difference to you, but it is an important difference nonetheless.
Manufacturers of buggy whips—the whips used to encourage horses—took a hit when the automobile came on the market. I’m certain that those manufacturers would have liked it if the government had required people to purchase buggy whips along with their gasoline-powered cars. But I think you’ll agree that it’s not the government’s place to shore up moribund business models.
Your situation isn’t exactly analogous, but it is similar. You are relying on a royalty-based business model that made sense when radios and LP records were the only means of disseminating music—and therefore recording labels held a monopoly on the dissemination of that music. That model no longer makes sense. Railing against the death of your business model will not get you anywhere—it’s like trying to shovel back the sea.
God, you people that say it isnt stealing are fucking morons. It is absolutely NO different than walking in to walmart and putting a cd in your pocket. U got the music for free, u stole it…unless it is some sort of free track that the artist releases. Plain and simple. Metallica did that for money? Give me a fucking break, they were already multi-multi 100 millionares for fuck’s sake!!! They did it for the little band that cant afford to fight. I used napster, limewire and the like but I still BOUGHT the music. Do you idiots get paid to flip burgers or make subway sandwiches? Of course u do. If the manager at subway/wilco asked u to construct a beautiful symphony of turkey, ham, lettuce and the works for free, would you?
This is a tough one. Metallica did come out looking like idiots with the whole napster trial. On the other hand, people who say that art should be free are obviously not artists. Books aren’t free. People are willing to pay for them, too. There aren’t torrents of copied books out there. (well there probably are, but no one uses them) Only music gets the brunt of the internet copying “epidemic”. And it’s not exactly fair because, while music is not as expensive to record, it still costs a lot of dough. As a DIY musician/artist, I have a full understanding of this principle. If I could make money from my tunes, I would make a lot more music – probably music of better quality. I could develop my art and improve what I am doing.
On the other hand, as a DIY musician/artist, I see copying as free publicity. I would not have heard of several artists, such as Evergreen Terrace had it not been for Mp3.com back in the day when it was a decent site. Copying and downloading probably increases the ease with which I could ultimately sell my tunes. Ruining MP3.com didn’t help anything. It just spawned a lot of other sites that are similar and lead to the inevitable downfall of the music industry.
But, there are also free, legal ways to listen to music that result in artists being paid, such as Grooveshark, Pandora, etc. The people who have invented them are now making lots of money.
It’s not a matter of stealing vs. not stealing. It’s a matter of partnering with the right people to make cash out of your art. It’s sort of the zen approach to music industry. Don’t let people get under your skin. Be generous with your music. Accept change. Don’t make things complicated, and you will make money.
I find it really funny how offended people where with this whole napster thing. AND even funnier how much of an impression it made on them almost as scarred them for life seeing how it has been 10 fucking years, and they are still mad about it.Get over it, you didnt miss a thing. You are still shelling out cash for stupid things and you just dont want to be reminded that you are a CONSUMER. Now, I may not like Lars attitude back then, and I dont think they were right about the whole legal action, but I still respect them as musicians simply because I like the music they make. Learn to differentiate. People still pissed at them for Napster saying the music sucks, just for that simple reason, have no bussines talking about artistic rights. And also most of these people get all pissed off when somebody downloads a picture of them from their facebook and posts it in another place. Lets be real, I dont think the whole Napster thing was a money issue for Metallica, it was more of a pride thing. But anyway, it was a public image mistake and that’s it. My advice, GET OVER IT!, you all sound like Dave Mustaine.
Lars Ulrich is a jacka**!!! (period) He shoulda’ just shut the fu*k up like the other artists and made his dough through concerts, product branding and whatever other ways these famous celebs make money, instead of crying about napsters peaceful ideology of “free-music” to mother earth….
Peace
Ze Terminator
Peace by termination… an oxymoron or a strategy? But that’s argumentum ad hominem… which means I’m just flinging what you do back at you.
While I agree that the business model as halfway to the grave, I SO want to disagree, for the simple reason that I don’t want to be in the same boat with the likes of you. Argue about the thing, not about the bloody person, eh?
Although the article itself is quite provocatively written, no wonder, really.
Metallica.. A bunch of past-it divas.
umm everyone is missing the point where is all the money going that they won in court cases ???? the riaa is keeping 90% it was never supposed to go back to the artist the real thieves is the riaa think about it you cant get a (big lable)record deal without them involved and they use their own in house legal team spend lost of hours on the cases and get paid out of the court cases when they already get paid from part of record sales thats called double dipping
Any smart band or musician should realize that all publicity and attention works to their advantage when selling tickets for their live tours, which is where their income is really made. They can also use modern technology to their advantage by having a website where fans could hear excellent quality, full versions of their body of work for FREE, and then sell banner ad space on their site and make money that way. They just have to get smart, keep up with the times, and stop alienating their fans.
To all you lads who defend the music industry somewhat blindly, and think there are no grey areas where consumers should be allowed to make ephemeral copies or share music they have purchased in reasonable but arguably and somewhat subjectively ‘illegal’ ways… Most people (aka pretty much all) in the music industry pirate the hell out of music. Beyond outright copying and sharing of products that may or may not be within their own company’s copyright domain, they give each other promo copies and share/trade promo copies in ways which they were not intended (or licensed) for. Very few of them actually buy a majority of their music collection… or pay to go to shows.
Sure you could say a percentage of that behavior could be deemed an industry perk — but the reality is a large portion of it is technically not legal. And it costs artists and shareholders since the label has to recoup all of the losses to free copies, free concert tickets, lost sales, etc. before artists manage to pay back advances or see much in royalties and before there is technically any profit made.
Not to say an absolute free-for-all should be the norm, since this undoubtedly impacts the ability of musicians to support their work beyond hobbyists (pushing more professional artists to be whores for advertising). But the industry has a long way to go before I would be flying an ethics flag in their defense.
First of all I would like to say to all of you, who don’t want to pay for music:
“Well music is a mirror of your life and our culture, it is culture – if you devalue music (and you do so by not paying for it), you devalue your own culture, and when you devalue your own culture, you devalue yourself, now why would you do that. Well most of us won’t, but we can’t see the connection, we are simply not trained to see that connection, only by developing your intellectual skills, you will be able to see that.
Now if we take the same philosophy of copying and sharing music for free, and put it into another bussiness, like medicin. Imagine we could buy a hardware on the internet and then you feed it with downloaded data, and out comes any medicin you want – for free. Or it could be some hardware that could print out the newest gadgets – for free!
What would happend?
Well first it’ll be a lot of fun, but second developing new ideas would stop – Why?
Simply because if you won’t get paid, why bother in the first place about spending a lot of time writing a song, even more time on rehearsing the song and a lot of time and money recording the song. Or when put into another bussiness; why spending a lot of time on developing a new vacccine or drug that could cure cancer, and put it into production, or why invent a new smart gadget, just to see it copied and shared on the internet for free?
Now that will stop creative people in been creative and do something good for the rest of us, we will stop developing anything, if it’s that kind of world you want in the future, for your kids, then just go on copying on the internet, and keep on devalue yourself.
But if you don’t, support the people with the ideas and keep up developing your intellectual skills, go buy the gadget, medicin or music!
[...] Sean Parker — the Napster guy — may be set to buy Warner Music Group. For those of you keeping score, that's Metallica's record label. Who wants [...]
first off, piracy is theft. you are gaining access to a product you are supposed to pay money for without paying the cost to the owners. now are these owners the RIGFHTFUL owners? FUCK NO! pirate your ass off. the artists never see a dime from record sales. they are paid a paltry sum upfront for signing the x number of albums contract. if they’re lucky, they force the label to grant them merch rights. thats where artists make their money. i personally embrace filesharing networks. they allow you to get your music out to soo many more people. in fact, 1 of my bands (the one you will see videos of if you go to my youtube page at http://www.youtube.com/user/teameld) will be releasing our debut album not only in some local stores, but on what.cd, thepiratebay, demonoid, and other torrent sites i’m a member of. why? because that many more people will listen and spread the word. PIRATE AWAY! STEAL FROM THE LABELS WHO STEAL FROM THE ARTISTS!
OK regardless of which ever side of the fence you sit on when it comes to downloading music with out paying for it, it boils down to the fact that its not the Musician in the Short term who gets fucked over. It’s the record company. With Radio heads album ” In Rainbows” they decided to ditch the record company and go it alone. The also decided in the UK that before the album was released in the shops they were going to make it available to download at a cost of anything between £0.01p and £100. They worked out that even if everyone only paid £0.01 for the album they would STILL make more than if they were signed to a conventional record label and released the album.
So all the people that say the Music industry is in decline are LAIRS. It’s the recording industry. Live Music is doing a whole lot better than it used to thanks, in-part, to services like Lime wire ect which generates more money for the artist, rather than the record label, because people come to their shows and buy their merch.
People should support artists in this way rather than buying/pirating tracks. That way you still generating money for the artist and giving The Man a 2 figured salute.
As a music magazine editor for over 19 years, I have been handed CD’s by record labels for the life of this magazine’s existence… Granted, I do the work for the labels of promotion and P/R… One thing people are forgetting, YES Metallica (as much as I hate them, NOT just for their Napster thing, but for the fact that they’ve lost touch with who they are, turned their backs on the people who PUT them where they are, AND, are NOT metal anymore), deserve to get paid. If people are still stupid enough to buy their albums, then yeah, they gets paid… BUT the HUGE thing is that back in the 80′s, when Metallica were basically unknown, HOW did they get the word out? They recorded a series of demo tapes, gave them to their friends, families, people they knew overseas and record labels/clubs/promoters and other industry bigwigs, and said… AND I QUOTE: “Hey! Here’s our new material. Take it, copy it, spread it, make sure you send word of us far and wide…” Now, some might think this is a death sentence. The band Exodus, who called their demo “Another Lesson In Violence” (or was it A Lesson In Violence, I forget), had this tape traded all around the world. When that demo got them signed to Torrid/Combat Records, the label people were worried that no one would buy the album since ALL the demo songs were on the album… However, in the FIRST WEEK of sales, 30,000 copies of the album went like hotcakes… And Exodus is STILL around to this day… My point is, sometimes it’s more important to get the word out, ESPECIALLY for smaller bands who luck out and happen to tour, in a situation like that, more people will go to the shows (where bands make MORE money than the pittance record labels deal out to them) when they know of the band and their music. How does that happen? Well, if the “kid” is broke, they probably heard the band from a friend chillin’ at their house, or by downloading… You think that band cares, REALLY? Well, the kid is at a concert of said band where the ticket price was 20 or 30 bucks, almost double or triple what the CD costs…
Metallica aren’t so much sellouts as they are out of touch with reality… And they have no respect for their fans… They’re bitching about Napster when I hear about hundreds of bands every month from all over the globe who would KILL to be where Metallica are right now… And they would be even MORE glad for the support from someone who downloaded the album who never heard of them…. AND… they have more talent and songwriting ability than Metallica’s been able to muster over their last 4 or 5 tragedies (IE, their last few albums). I guest host from time to time at a college radio station, and one of the DJ’s down there knows a lot of big musicians and music industry people. I will leave you with a story he related to me about WHY Jason Newstead left Metallica and joined up with the band Voivod ( a band that has ALWAYS had my respect and integrity and NEVER stopped creating amazing albums)… Jason was at a Metallica show walking through the crowd, shaking hands with fans, signing autographs, and Lars and James came running up to him saying “Dude! What the fuck are you doing? We’re so much bigger than this, man, we don’t need to do this crap anymore!!!” Yeah, they were pissed because Jason respects his fans and those who probably spent their hard earned money to see these fools… Jason, you have my eternal respect, you did the right thing by joining a REAL metal band, and if I ever get to meet you, I would be honored to shake your hand and say you definitely did the right thing… Fuck the money, you have earned the RIGHT to call yourself a diehard and dedicated musician, and you have more honor in your pinkie than Metallica has in their entire band roster…
First thing a thief does when caught is justify his actions. “It was just sitting there on the front lawn so I
figured no one wanted it”. This is what I see in the above comments from the pro “Free download” idiots.
It’s theft. So now that Napster is dead, Limewire is dead and a host of other free download P2P services are dead how do you fucks feel? The music industry is in shambles, a whole generation of people have virtually given up on music (having been raised on free music, they are loathe to spend $$$ so the music industry is now a ghetto) and the quality has suffered to the point of irrelevance……
Enjoy your “music”…..fuckin’ thieves