Moreover, it’s *essential.* You can’t communicate on the ‘net without copying, and you can’t control copying on the net without controlling communication..

Metallica was fighting the last war. I have some sympathy for them, but not for what they wanted to bring about.

I’m in less agreement about Metallica, and its position on Napster. My problem with Metallica is that the band, and Lars Ulrich in particular, were being somewhat hypocritical in their stance against Napster. Ulrich and Hetfield had acknowledged many times that their early inspirations were a lot of obscure British and European metal bands who they first heard by virtue of tape trading networks, in which they participated. Tape trading, for all intents and purposes, is the analog snail mail precursor to Napster.

I’m certain that tape traders in the early 80s made the same arguments that Napster fans made in the late 90s, that they were spreading culture and doing the traded bands a favor. And I don’t doubt that many of those bands were glad to have their albums copied and sent to the US, just as some bands have embraced file sharing. But I would not argue that ALL bands appreciated having their recordings shared in this manner.

It’s admittedly small point, but one I feel should be acknowledged. Nevertheless, I think that Metallica has actually redeemed itself rather well over the years by offering free live recordings on its website and otherwise embracing nonprofit sharing. And I do concur with the aspect of Metallica’s anti-Napster stance that objected to the for-profit nature of Napster the company.