Kris
Nitro Member
Not to pick on you Kris, but if you downloaded a "horrible sound quality" MP3 on Napster, then you only have yourself to blame, as you could sort available MP3s by bitrate. I set mine at 192kbps (CD Quality) and never had a problem.
You are correct though, all P2P networks that came after Napster were not nearly as user friendly (not to mention a HUGE security risk). I have since migrated to using Newsgroups to get my MP3s, and have never had a problem getting anything new or relevant with good quality, the extreme example being Tool's (my favorite band) "10,000 Days" which was on the newsgroups a full 21 days before their release. They played Coachella BEFORE the album came out, and there were many of us in the crowd that already knew many of the lyrics ... Maynard even commented on it.
Lastly, no one should ever let the marketplace, be it digital or otherwise, dictate your taste in anything. You should always spend your money where you choose. Metallica's stance on Napster REALLY turned me off to them, particularly Lars ... to top it all off, the music they were putting out was inferior to all of their earlier efforts IMO. So they will never see a red cent from me (if I can help it) again. These were the same guys that did not make a music video until their THIRD album because they thought the genre defined music too much and they wanted the music to stand on it's own, then they wanted to argue over a few cents??? Still can't wrap my brain around that one ....
Not all the stuff I downloaded from Napster was horrible but a fair portion of it was and it could well have been user error on my part or just bad upload quality on others. Some of it was clearly copies of copies and just plain sounded bad. No adjustment of bitrate will fix a bad file. But I also went out of my way not to download copyright protected material if I could help it. I've tried torrents recently and was successfully able to download one album which was decent but I ended up buying it anyway. The patience required for that crap pisses me off.
Was Kazaa (I had that for a while) the one that was notorious for virii and the like? I remember the RIAA started going after people using that and I decided at that point that what I was getting for my time -- if the downloads finished at all -- wasn't worth the ire of the RIAA. Last thing you wanna do is get between the labels and their money.
From my perspective I can understand where Metallica was coming from because there is nothing more annoying than to see someone steal your hard work and wonder what the hell do you do about it.
I have just (and trust me, I've tried) never understood why people who were violating copyright laws and illegally downloading things (often knowingly) could be upset that the artists were protecting their music and have a bitter taste in their mouth over it 8 years later.
If someone started plagiarizing my articles or using my stories without my consent I'd be very unhappy. It's bad enough when people steal my story ideas (Sandy Ringer from the Seattle Times, I'm looking at you).
All this makes me wonder what kind of publishing rights Lars and James have on their catalog. If they have a really good publishing deal then I could understand even more why they wouldn't want their stuff out there.
I know you're not the only one who feels that way about Metallica but I have just never understood it. People can't believe I buy music, though, but I do and primarily from a local record shop called Silver Platters. So I guess it's a matter of perspective.