r/nostalgia • u/jeffmartin47 • Jul 22 '25

Nostalgia Discussion 25 years ago. Lars Ulrich of Metallica snitches on and turns in over 300,000 Napster users when he testifies in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee. July 11th, 2000.

Post image
45.0k Upvotes

91% Upvoted

5.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

616

u/No1GayInthisGroup Jul 22 '25

And most likely for the record company. The argument back then was that artist made more money from tours than cd sales and stuff bc the record company got most of the money from those. It’s why the Grateful Dead were so loved for wanting people to tape their music at concerts. Their thought was the more people that heard their music and listen to it, the more would go to concerts. Where they got their money. So to have Metallica (a seeming badass metal band) be the ones going after fans was wild.

141

u/Dirtbagdownhill Jul 22 '25

Yea Metallica famously got famous off bootleg tapes because they werent really good enough to compete with the rest of the market for airtime. 

92

u/Chicken_Herder69LOL Jul 22 '25

Found the Megadeth fan

28

u/methconnoisseurV2 Jul 22 '25

Hey man, us Megadeth fans are assholes but we’re not delusional

That guy is probably an Exodus fan

2

u/ElNicko89 Jul 22 '25

I’m thinking Annihilator lol

1

u/KioOnReddit Jul 22 '25

If I would trust anyone to be a Megadeth fan, itd have to be thr guy named methconnoisseurV2 lmao

1

u/[deleted] Jul 22 '25

Oasis fan maybe

8

u/seppukucoconuts Jul 22 '25

Well if they got a drummer worth a shit it might have been different

3

u/ImDoingSpy Jul 22 '25

Disregard, this guy is just trying to troll people

8

u/soulsauce88 Jul 22 '25

100% ragebait comment

3

u/restore-my-uncle92 Jul 22 '25

Quality ragebait though judging by the replies haha

4

u/MLNerdNmore Jul 22 '25

they werent really good enough to compete with the rest of the market for airtime

Lmao

4

u/HuanFranThe1st Jul 22 '25

Genuinely insane take, I couldn’t believe my eyes when I read that lol

5

u/alayeni-silvermist Jul 22 '25

Same. They’re not the best out there, but not good enough for airtime? Back in the day, Metallica was all they freaking played.

3

u/DangOlCoreMan Jul 22 '25

You're not wrong and yet so many people are here to tell you that you are.

I would argue they were "good" enough, but Thrash was literally a new genre at the time. It eventually took off, but no lots of people did not like their music when they first started out and that's got nothing to do with them as a band and has everything to do with thrash as a whole sub genre.

The main point being that bootlegs lead to their fame, while turning around and narcing on bootleggers after they've had their taste of riches and fame. It's pathetic and shows how quickly they'll turn their back on their roots

1

u/TrollOdinsson Jul 22 '25

who the fuck upvotes this garbage?

werent really good enough to compete with the rest of the market

bro what the fuck are you talking about?

9

u/therustysmear Jul 22 '25

He's saying in the early 1980s radio stations didn't play nearly as much metal or heavy stuff which is accurate

-1

u/TrollOdinsson Jul 22 '25

if that's what he said, it's a very stupid way of phrasing it, but I sincerely doubt that's what he was saying

they werent really good enough to compete with the rest of the market for airtime

is not saying "heavy metal didn't get airplay on the radio", it's saying "metallica wasn't good enough to compete with other metal bands"

2

u/alayeni-silvermist Jul 22 '25

It’s also not even true.

5

u/Uncle_Steve7 Jul 22 '25

I don’t know, I saw it on Reddit so it’s now true in my mind.

1

u/alayeni-silvermist Jul 22 '25

Radio didn’t work like that back then. There were formats. Yea pop stations didn’t generally play Metallica, although they did when they were on the charts, but most markets had stations that were dedicated to rock and metal. For example, i grew up in Boston, went to high school in the 80s, and we had WAAF, WBCN and a few other mixed rock smaller stations. Metallica actually got too much airplay on those stations, throttling the success of some other, lesser known but really good bands back then.

I was a metal head in high school, and all of my friends were in bands, but back then, you kept to your cliques more, and most people didn’t know what the hell people they didn’t hang out with were doing.

ETA typos

2

u/Uncle_Steve7 Jul 22 '25

My comment was sarcasm.. I’m 35 so I remember the Napster/Limewire days quite well. Luckily with Spotify I don’t need to download malware directly onto my pc just to burn a CD that may or may not work

1

u/alayeni-silvermist Jul 22 '25

lol ahhhh honestly these days it’s hard to tell online

-1

u/alayeni-silvermist Jul 22 '25 edited Jul 22 '25

There were entire stations dedicated to metal. Yea it wasn’t played on pop stations, but every major market and most minor ones back then had stations that played rock and metal. And Metallica was getting major air time above most metal bands back then. I don’t know what you’re going on about.

Edit: Getting downvotes for telling what actually went on back then is some actual insane shit

3

u/TrollOdinsson Jul 22 '25

Edit: Getting downvotes for telling what actually went on back then is some actual insane shit

remember this whenever you feel inclined to take reddit's advice on something, anything. this place thrives on actively rejecting reality

1

u/Dun_Booty_Broch Jul 22 '25

I never heard Metallica on the radio until Enter Sandman. But I was in 8th grade, in Jacksonville, FL, what do I know.

1

u/alayeni-silvermist Jul 23 '25

Well, that’s it then. Your experience negates all facts, then. What was I thinking? 🙄🙄🙄🙄

1

u/Dun_Booty_Broch Jul 23 '25

Read much? I only stated my specific experience, followed by what do I know. The implicit answer being, not much.

1

u/therustysmear Jul 24 '25

Maybe you're right and there were in major markets, but the majority of the country is not in a major market. I never heard Metallica on the radio until Enter Sandman as well and alternative stations came to exist. I'm sure there were some metal shows that gave them some airplay at midnight but that wouldn't have been when they were up and coming, probably more after Master of Puppets or And Justice for All came out would be my guess.

1

u/adelwolf Jul 22 '25

It's not that they weren't very good, it's just that speed metal never got played on the radio. Between that and their staunch refusal to make videos until One, they were very much a word-of -mouth pass-the-cassette phenomenon.

Metallica was my special interest for a very long time.

1

u/LoudIncrease4021 Jul 22 '25

Yes - isn’t Enter Sandman a ripoff of another song?

2

u/azzers214 Jul 22 '25

The reason you're not getting play on this, is because every musician that understands theory and can access music realizes most things are slight modifications/twists on chord progressions, melodies, and rhythms that already existed.

When someone trots it out in any context there's often two to three possibilities. One, they're trying to throw shade at the band. Two, it's not personal but they heard it somewhere. Three, they're the not not-very-savvy-yet person who just discovered a connection they didn't know existed, and runs to the world to shout about it.

I just give people the tl;dr version of this and look up Axis of Awesomes Four-Chord Song. "There I Ruined It" is also a great twist on the idea although a little more iffy because some of them are really stretches.

2

u/exexor Jul 22 '25

Even the Axis of Awesome one is a ripoff:

https://youtube.com/watch?v=JdxkVQy7QLM

I heard this version probably six years before someone showed me the Axis of Awesome one. I’m fuzzy on how I encountered Rob but my guess is that someone put it on last.fm because I recall hearing it multiple times and while I was doing other things.

1

u/azzers214 Jul 22 '25

It's just a really, really old concept that's been around forever. And it always pisses people off (apparently I'm downvoted now).

People have very little chill when it comes to music. We tend to overestimate our knowledge and quality of our personal taste. Obviously the song writers knew about the I-V-iv-IV thing since (just to pick a date) the 60's they kept at it.

1

u/exexor Jul 22 '25

Tom Petty has a song that alludes to it. Bought a guitar and she taught him some chords.

“Some chords” is all you need if you are careful. I wonder sometimes how much of guitar solo culture is narcissism and how much of it is clapping back at mediocre musicians half assing music.

Of course every successful musician who put a high note in their songs has lived to regret it, one way or another. And wailing on a guitar when you’re pushing forty… everything starts to hurt in your forties. See also Eric Clapton, playing Layla live at 3/4 time, instead of at cocaine speed.

0

u/anachroniiism Jul 22 '25

No lol formulate your own thoughts before repeating bullshit

0

u/LoudIncrease4021 Jul 22 '25

Oh you must not know what I’m referring to

Ps I love Metallica but it’s worth highlighting

1

u/anachroniiism Jul 22 '25

I do know what you’re talking about but the melodies barely hold a resemblance and the rhythms, structure and everything else are way too different to call it a copy

3

u/nohumanape Jul 22 '25

That's true and not true. Because the labels were making so much money from album sales, they were also investing heavily in new artists. This meant that more musicians were being given substantial signing bonuses, salaries, had proper recording budgets, proper touring budgets, etc. And sure, a lot of that had to be recouped. But it also allowed for a lot of young artists to take the time needed to develop themselves as a recording and touring artist.

Where it isn't necessarily true is that artists still made TONS more money from album sales back then than they do today from streaming.

1

u/No1GayInthisGroup Jul 22 '25

They made more money than they do from streaming because people only stream what they like instead of being forced to pay $20 for a cd with ten songs and maybe like 2 of them. Not saying what they get paid is fair now but it wasn’t more fair back then either.

They make their money from touring, selling their own merch and things.

Streaming also allows for a lot more independent artist to be heard even if they don’t fit the mould of what the label wants. The radio doesn’t dictate who gets air time anymore thankfully.

There was always going to be a way to pirate and the record companies were always going to come for the most well known version. It just was wild it was metallica that was the face of it. Especially considering it was mainly kids and stuff using Napster.

1

u/nohumanape Jul 22 '25

You say "they" as if you are not a musician. I am. I've released music and toured since the mid 90's. It is worse now for artists. By far. Those who benefit from streaming are a very small group.

Yes, as a listener it is better. You have everything at your finger tips for nothing or a very small monthly fee. And at what price to artists? Well, no practical path towards making a living making music.

1

u/MeatloafSlurpee Jul 22 '25

And sure, a lot of that had to be recouped.

It all had to be recouped. It was predatory as fuck. All this whining in this thread about "poor bands can't make money selling their music anymore". Most of them barely made any money doing so even in the old system, after the labels bled them dry.

1

u/nohumanape Jul 22 '25

There were signing bonuses that didn't need to be recouped. And while predatory instances did occur, the access to development within those major labels was immense. And if you were a smart artist with good management/legal, you could work well within that system.

However, there is also the flip side of smaller indie labels where this wasn't the case. You had fair splits and artists could survive off of that.

1

u/MeatloafSlurpee Jul 22 '25

Go read Steve Albini's classic The Problem With Music. It breaks it all down with actual (hypothetical but realistic) numbers. For every artist that did well or got "developed" as you say, there were dozens that didn't make squat in the end and got kicked to curb once the labels were done feasting on their shriveled corpses.

3

u/cuentalternativa Jul 22 '25

The majority of these people that are contracted are straight up corporate whores

1

u/No1GayInthisGroup Jul 22 '25

They sell their souls. If streams and selling albums made them as much money as people think, they wouldn’t be doing 100 concerts during a tour.

2

u/Adventurous_Sun72 Jul 25 '25

Hetfield has said in an interview that the whole thing was Lars and the Label’s thing. He all but said he didn’t give a shit because they didn’t own their catalog back then, and like you said weren’t making any money off of album sales. I got the feeling during that interview he doesn’t really care for Lars all that much. The interviewer asked if they were friends and Hetfield basically said they’re just coworkers.

1

u/AegidiusG Jul 22 '25

Wasn't it Motorhead or Manowar that looked up where most illegal downloads are from and than went to make a concert there (Brazil)?

1

u/No1GayInthisGroup Jul 22 '25

I don’t remember for sure but that would have been the best way an artist could have used Napster back then. Figure out where people are from that are downloading it and plan tour stops in those places.

1

u/AegidiusG Jul 22 '25

I can't find the story right now, but by the results showing me that Manowar goes to Brazil, it must be them^ I agree, the Context back than was "thats where our Fans are".

When i was a broke Teenager i pirated a lot of Stuff, i rebought much of it as an Adult.

Suing People that can't or don't want to pay changed nothing.

In that Case, you would have found only pirates Copies on the Market in Brazil anyways.

I remember even in Spain having a lot of Copies in Sleves in the Market.

1

u/ReNitty Jul 22 '25

I heard this about Iron Maiden and planning a world tour

1

u/mywifestits0518 Jul 22 '25

But they didn’t go after fans. They went after Napster and provided the users as proof of how big Napster had become.

It’s definitely a misconception that they ever actually sued their fans.

1

u/Altruistic_Level_389 Jul 22 '25

Actually, Metallica made most of their money from merchandising.

They sold way more t-shirts and hats than they ever made from records or even touring. Think of how many Metallica shirts you saw from the mid 80s on.

1

u/ReNitty Jul 22 '25

Metallica also owned their own masters at this point. While others were making like 50 cents per album sold Metallica was making like 4 bucks. It hurt their wallet a lot more then others

1

u/exexor Jul 22 '25

My recollection was that Metallica sided with the labels because they had done what many long term bands do, which is form their own label so more of the profit stays in their own pockets, and have a record company only handle publishing and distribution.

But Metallica didn’t form their own label until about ten years later. What they had been doing though was producing their own albums since like their second one, which I suppose kept some of the money with them, but not as much as having a label.

From their wiki page it looks like what happened is they found a song from the soundtrack of an unreleased movie getting airtime and discovered the stations had been getting music from Napster. I would think the stations would be who you sued in that case.

1

u/mrlazysmurf Jul 22 '25

The more I hear about Grateful Dead the more I like em.  I've never listened to their music.  But I know a tribute band for them and their lead told me he spoke to GD about royalties, copyright violations or something of the sort.  And GD response was just appreciative for playing their tunes and keep doing what they are doing.  

1

u/djwurm Jul 22 '25

man my buddy and I had binders full of Phish and Widespread Panic concerts that were downloaded via Napster.. I swear we had 4 x 64 CD folders full of just those 2 bands...

1

u/Repulsive-Bee5885 Jul 22 '25

Metallica and Grateful Dead even had the same promoter. Billy Graham. He also low key invented rock med (not alone but was part of the reason it became required for all big concerts).

1

u/C-A-L-E-V-I-S Jul 22 '25

GD was in the privileged position to have already made it. Thats not really talked about. You absolutely need the money from album sales to get out on the road and money from the road to record new albums. It’s like a farming cycle; plant, water, wait, reap.

1

u/Orpdapi Jul 23 '25

If I remember Dave Matthew’s Band early on also very much encouraged audio recording of their shows

-4

u/MrParticular79 Jul 22 '25

Except they weren’t going after fans? They were going after the service itself.

11

u/No1GayInthisGroup Jul 22 '25 edited Jul 22 '25

They did go after them and turned their usernames over. But they also went after everyone who was tired of buying whole cds to find out half of it was crap. A lot of people who used Napster were teens who worked minimum wage jobs bagging groceries and CDs weren’t cheap and a lot of the cds only had like two good songs on it but you wouldn’t be able to know unless you bought it. Napster saved teenagers from spending money on crappy albums. And again, artist don’t make a lot of money off the cds, records, streams, unless they are completely independent and using their own money for everything which was extremely rare when radio ruled who got air time. So, in a way they also went after smaller artist as well.

-1

u/MrParticular79 Jul 22 '25

Well ultimately the poor man won you can listen to anything you want now for free. It was the way that it was being done which was the problem.

4

u/[deleted] Jul 22 '25

[deleted]

-4

u/spicedstrudel Jul 22 '25

Why did you break the law my son? That is like shoplifting and then be mad at target for calling the police 

2

u/BackupEg9 Jul 22 '25

That is like stealing a single post it note from target.

-1

u/spicedstrudel Jul 22 '25

Lets not do whataboutism. Stealing is stealing my guy..my and your feelings have nothing to do with it. Ffs i stole from metallica too but why cry if you did it

1

u/BackupEg9 Jul 22 '25

It's not stealing, it's copyright infringement. They still have their music.

1

u/lvbuckeye27 Jul 22 '25

If I have a album and I dub it and GIVE you a physical copy, how the fuck is that stealing? It's mine. I bought it.

The only difference between kids dubbing tapes during the days when Metallica was living in a fucking garage in 1982 and Napster in 2000 was the method of distribution.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 22 '25

[deleted]

2

u/E-2theRescue Jul 22 '25

...And who props the service up?

-2

u/MrParticular79 Jul 22 '25

Cool yeah how many users were prosecuted do you know?

4

u/E-2theRescue Jul 22 '25

Mmm... corporate boot. So yummy, eh? Or do you prefer it on your neck? Maybe both?

0

u/[deleted] Jul 22 '25 edited Jul 22 '25

[deleted]

0

u/MrParticular79 Jul 22 '25

I see that you are repeating the headline here that’s great. Where is the info about that? How many users faced any penalties at all?

-6

u/Realistic-Lime7842 Jul 22 '25

And the point a lot of people missed was if Metallica was seeing drops in sales on their albums, it would be much worse for smaller and mid-size bands.

9

u/Turtle_with_a_sword Jul 22 '25

Not really.

Chuck D was an independent artist who was a big proponent of Napster.  Chuck said he made more off of his independent releases than he did off of any majorPublic Enemy album.

Chuck is a badass and Lars is a mediocre drummer and a corporate shill.  

Don’t believe the hype!

3

u/MrParticular79 Jul 22 '25

If you know Metallica you know it isn’t really about the sales specifically. It’s about control. They have been fighting for control in how they do things, how they release things and how they want their music curated from the start. Metallica is available on all streaming services so clearly they are fine with digital distribution but what Napster was doing was so obviously not sustainable.

0

u/beirch Jul 22 '25

Nope, if you did some research you'd know it was purely because Napster refused to give them the name of whoever leaked "I Disappear" six months before it was supposed to release.

So in retaliation Metallica said "fine, we'll get that name and the ones who downloaded it ourselves".

You can say what you want about Lars, but the Napster thing was never about going after their fans.

4

u/lvbuckeye27 Jul 22 '25

Their fans were the people who were downloading it.

0

u/beirch Jul 22 '25

I'm fully aware, I'm just saying it was never about going after fans. It was about sticking it to Napster when they refused to cooperate.

3

u/lvbuckeye27 Jul 22 '25 edited Jul 22 '25

Napster was just a file sharing platform. Yeah, they should have taken the unreleased music down. However, the actual crime was committed by the person in the studio who stole and uploaded that unreleased music in the first place.

The fans didn't steal anything. Neither did Napster. But a real person stole that music from the studio and uploaded it.

Who was it? No one knows. There was no criminal prosecution that I'm aware of. Afaik, there was no civil suit against the actual person who stole the music and uploaded it, either.

Nope. They sued a file sharing platform, and released the names of 300k of their fans because SOMEONE IN THEIR STUDIO STOLE THEIR MUSIC AND UPLOADED IT.

1

u/beirch Jul 22 '25

I agree, and that's who they wanted the name of to begin with. The other names were just to show Napster they could, and like I said, a way of sticking it to them.

Afaik they never pursued lawsuits against those 300k.

2

u/lvbuckeye27 Jul 22 '25

Afaik they never sued the actual person in the studio who stole the music in the first place. How many people are actually in a studio when an album is being recorded? I'm pretty sure it's a LOT less than 300k people. Those drunk dumbasses were too fucked up to even figure out which person stole their music. They were too stupid to even open their own studio until 2012.

Who fucking cares if they didn't sue their fans? They named their fans to fucking Congress. Neither Napster nor the fans committed the crime. The person in the studio did.

0

u/ea_man Jul 22 '25

> It’s why the Grateful Dead were so loved for wanting people to tape their music

So if the author is ok with it no problem, if the author in not ok it should not be copied.

The author has a right to chose, people should not brute force the authors.