stormingfredjackson

Is that why you requested over $10,000,000.00 in damages at a rate of $100,000.00 per downloaded song? If it was really about control, why wasn't the injunction enough?

(Source - http://news.cnet.com/2100-1023-239263.html)

EDIT - Since Lars has apparently left without answering this question, I've taken the liberty of excerpting his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee to demonstrate just how much it was "not about the money" to him.

LARS ULRICH: With Napster, every song by every artist is available for download at no cost. And, of course, with no payment to the artist, the songwriter, or the copyright-holder. If you are not fortunate enough to own a computer, there is only one way to assemble a music collection the equivalent of a Napster user, theft. Walk into a record store, grab what you want and walk out. The difference is that the familiar phrase, "file's done," is now replaced by another familiar phrase, "you are under arrest."

Since what I do is make music, let's talk about the recording artist for a moment. When Metallica makes an album, we spend many months and many hundreds of thousands of our own dollars writing and recording. We typically employ a record producer, recording engineers, programmers, assistants and occasionally other musicians. We rent time for months at recording studios which are owned by small businessmen who have risked their own capital, to buy, maintain, and constantly upgrade very expensive equipment and facilities. Our record releases are supported by hundreds of record companies' employees and provide programming for numerous radio and television stations.

Add it all up, and you have an industry with many jobs, a few glamorous ones like ours, and lots more covering all levels of the pay scale and providing wages which support families and contribute to our economy. Remember too that my band Metallica is fortunate enough to make a great living from what we do. Most artists are barely a decent wage and need every source of revenue available to scrape by. Also keep in mind that the primary source of income for most songwriters is from the sale of records. Every time a Napster enthusiast downloads a song, it takes money from the pockets of all these members of the creative community.

It is clear then that if music is free for downloading, the music industry is not viable. All the jobs that I just talked about will be lost and the diverse voices of the artists will disappear. The argument I hear a lot, that music should be free, must then mean the musicians should work for free. Nobody else works for free, why should musicians?

Did you wear a wig in Wet Hot American Summer?

Also who in your opinion put forth the best performance in that movie?