Anthrax’s Scott Ian: Ban Illegal Downloaders From the Intern

Jeanwah

Metallica drummer Lars Ulrich may have finally found his soulmate for hatred of Internet downloading – within the Big 4 of thrash, no less. Anthrax axeman Scott Ian recently spoke with New Times about the decline of record sales, Anthrax fans “stealing” the band’s 10th studio album, ‘Worship Music’ and how illegal downloaders should be banned from the Internet.

When asked about ‘Worship Music’ selling 30,000 albums its first week and entering the Billboard charts at No. 12, the band’s highest debut in 20 years, Ian immediately began his tirade against illegal Internet downloading. “The fact that we sold 30,000 the first week and entered at No. 12 was awesome — for 2011,” Ian replied. “But to put it in perspective sales-wise, it just sucks that 30,000 is considered a huge success in 2011. It’s a double-edged sword because on one hand it’s like, “Woo-hoo, we did great,” but then it’s also like, “Yeah, but how many other people stole the record, and you should have sold 150,000 copies this first week?”"

Ian has debated many Anthrax fans about the issue on his Twitter page. “There is no argument. I’m not even going to get into that conversation,” exclaimed Ian. “You’re stealing! It’s stealing, that’s what it is. It’s not free for us to make these records. These records are on sale in many, many places where you can pay your money to buy the product that we are selling. Anything outside of that is stealing. There is no conversation to be had.”

Finally, when asked about what the punishment should be for Internet downloading, Ian responded, “You lose your Internet. That’s it, no more Internet for you. Seriously! Like you drive drunk, you lose the privilege of driving. You download illegally, you lose the privilege of having the Internet. The punishment fits the crime.”

Anthrax are currently touring the U.S. with fellow metal legends Testament and Death Angel. Click here for their latest tour dates.

**********************************************************************************************************************************

I can't blame him. Music piracy is why shows have gotten so expensive. Just because we can download music from the internet doesn't make it right.

BinauralJam

I agree with him, BUT, all those years selling $20 cd's that cost $1.12 to manufactor on which he made millions, if the music business hadn't been greedy, people would have never resorted to stealing in the first place.

MayDay Malone

Who the F#@K is Anthrax?

Jason P

I was able to get this record for $8 on Amazon, which is a hell of a deal. I remember spending an hour to choose between getting Use Your Illusion 1 and 2 because CD's used to be $18.99.

And he has a point. Only the Lady Gaga's can make it today. It certainly dilutes the pool of new bands to choose from if there is no way to make profit.

Also, I'm not into metal as much as I used to be, but Worship Music is classic Anthrax. I prefer John Bush over Joey Belladonna, but Belladonna did a very good job.

JTH

I just bought this album on vinyl. It did not come with a "free" download.

So if I go and download the tracks, am I stealing?

Jason P

JTH wrote:

I just bought this album on vinyl. It did not come with a "free" download.

So if I go and download the tracks, am I stealing?

Depends on the source. I paid to download the album, and I'm pretty sure I would be arrested if I walked into a record store and took a vinyl copy without paying.

quimby20

How about this Ian...... Stop charging $45.00 for a show where you do the same setlist that you could mail in every night. You shows are 14 songs long...... Who's ripping who off?????

Jeanwah

quimby20 wrote:

How about this Ian...... Stop charging $45.00 for a show where you do the same setlist that you could mail in every night. You shows are 14 songs long...... Who's ripping who off?????

Ever think of why the shows are so expensive? It's because of piracy!

satansbed

the real money is in touring anyway, heck if people download music for free that they otherwise wouldn't buy and like it and go to a concert and pay 40 quid for a ticket its much better for the band

TE264225

scott raises a good point

But i agree about the price - i used to buy a lot of import CDs (metal from sweden etc) an those cost anywhere from $30-$40 10 years ago...no problem in my youth but i now find it hard to justify those purchases....so now I have no problem paying for music if its decently priced, particularly at a show when you hand the artist your money and they give you an album out of the box - in fact i like this method the best

im not a fan of going to the store and paying $20 for a CD though
(for the record - i bought PJ20 bluray at an HMV in Canada for $20, single disc version but still a good deal in my books)

BinFrog

Poking fun at Scott Ian for what his band charges for shows, or saying that he is mailing it in is a nice way of avoiding admitting that piracy is stealing. Flat out stealing. It's no different than going to a CD store and shoplifting...just more convenient.

No, I'm not saying I am 100% innocent. But Lars Ulrich got a lot of flack back in the day when he took on Napster...mostly because he came across like a preachy, arrogant prick. But the fact remains that no matter what term you use to describe it in the internet age: it's theft. When people called him out because Metallica became popular in their early days due to fans freely handing out bootlegs and tapes, it just made me laugh. That argument would have held some merit...in 1983. They weren't an established band (i.e. they were ok with bootlegs because they had nothing to lose), and good luck using Napster on an Apple IIe.

Kel Varnsen

satansbed wrote:

the real money is in touring anyway, heck if people download music for free that they otherwise wouldn't buy and like it and go to a concert and pay 40 quid for a ticket its much better for the band

The whole idea that the real money is in touring sort of assumes that people are already familiar with the bands they want to go see (and they can sell enough tickets to cover their expenses and make a profit). I mean sure I will drop 120 bucks for a couple of tickets to Pearl Jam no problem. But I don't have the time or the energy to seek out bands I have never heard of, even if their music is free. So if bands are left up to their own devices to promote their music and tours they are going to have to work a hell of a lot harder for if they are lucky the same amount of touring money.

satansbed

Kel Varnsen wrote:

satansbed wrote:

the real money is in touring anyway, heck if people download music for free that they otherwise wouldn't buy and like it and go to a concert and pay 40 quid for a ticket its much better for the band

The whole idea that the real money is in touring sort of assumes that people are already familiar with the bands they want to go see (and they can sell enough tickets to cover their expenses and make a profit). I mean sure I will drop 120 bucks for a couple of tickets to Pearl Jam no problem. But I don't have the time or the energy to seek out bands I have never heard of, even if their music is free. So if bands are left up to their own devices to promote their music and tours they are going to have to work a hell of a lot harder for if they are lucky the same amount of touring money.

but in your case regardless of if there was pirating or not you wouldn't be going to new bands gigs regularly or listening to their music, but the people who do have the time or energy will download the music and then will go to the gigs.

The issue which seems to elude many people on this topic is not people sharing music and movies, as that has been happening since they started recording things. I mean, when you where young they did it on audio cassette and with VCRs.

The issue is the corporations. They have a crappy business model. It is about three decades out of date. Because of this they have no way to maximize their profits and have done what many corporations today do to raise revenue, turn to litigation.

Record companies in particular have a horrible business model. They throw money at a list of artists to see what sticks, then pump more money into what the public seems to like. This scattershot model means large amounts of money is throw around and wasted. Smaller labels have it right by using todays technology to target their audience.

Smaller labels also realise that the money is in live performances and not in record sales. Artists make a killing off live performances. If you think about larger artists that would play large venues, they make hundreds of thousands in a single night, in a matter of hours. They are not missing any meals. Even smaller artists support themselves these days on live gigs. Focus should be on live events and records should be used more as a tool for promotion rather than a revenue stream that must be protected by implementing draconian legal measures.

People have always shared music and movies. Traveling bards, Shakespearian theatre groups, and other artists have been around since time began sharing art they witnessed elsewhere.

Don't get me wrong, if you claim to have created something and that something isn't your work, thats a crime. If you make a living selling someone elses work without their consent, again you should be punished. But the whole idea people should be punished for doing something that has been done for centuries so that a small group of multi-national corporations can give a bigger dividend to their investors is something no one should accept.

quimby20

I might by more CD's if I could get deals like this ( and this is not an admission of downloading music):

http://www.popmarket.com/details/26516238

aerial

I used to be at ever Metallica show that came to town, but when Lars went to congress to get kids arrested it turned me off completely. To me they have lost touch with there fans. These people are living there dream and crying about money. To become as famous as they have you do depend on luck along with talent.
Times are different now and they need to adjust….Just like when the Asians undercut my business I had to adjust and got another job or my son and I would not be eating. Guess that’s why I don’t have any pity on these guys because it is not a matter of eating but a matter of if they can buy another luxury or not.

This guy seems to have a good idea…..

Become Rich By Giving Your Music Away For Free
By Sahpreem King

http://ezinearticles.com/?Become-Rich-By-Giving-Your-Music-Away-For-Free&id=6617644

It this age of cyber technology and advanced collaboration, it is advantageous for savvy independent music companies and artists to start harnessing the power of file-sharing, social networking, and Online collaboration. I'm sorry to bust your bubble, but record companies simply aren't checking for artists right now. They are too busy scurrying like roaches when lights come on, suing anyone they can prosecute for piracy, and trying to figure how they are going to continue to fuck artist out of millions of dollars using emerging technologies. This state of turmoil puts you my friend in a very powerful position. Believe me, no fan is his or her right state of mind is going to choose a record company over an artist-sorry Bad Boy Entertainment, but the days of the label overshadowing the artists are done. The fans are no dummies, they want to connect with the artists on a personal level and feel as if they are partners in the success of artists. In some aspects, the fans contributions, suggestions, taste, and opinions have a direct effect on the success or failure of an artist or band. For the life of me, I could never understand how an artist's ego becomes so inflated that they begin to ignore, alienate, or disrespect the very folks that bought them the big house, sparkly jewelry, and fancy car.
Back when the cassette tape was still king, street vendors would bootleg every and any song that was being played on popular radio. Many complained that this was taking money out of the artist's pockets and was the worst thing to happen to music since William Hung. I have personally witnessed an irrational rap star beat a street vendor halfway to death with his own box of cassettes because somewhere in his pea brain he justified his behavior by believing that the little bit of money the vendor was making from bootlegging was preventing him from ballin. Ha! What jackassary was this? What the rapper didn't realize is that consumers would have bought the bootleg version of album would eventually grow tired of a poorly duplicated copy and eventually go out and buy the real deal. In addition, even if they didn't buy his album, they would still become new fans that could potentially purchase concert tickets, t-shirts, and future albums, which are more powerful revenue streams.
In today's music game, its all about diversification, how many revenue streams can you generate outside of selling music? Name one artist on the planet and I can guarantee that with enough web searches you could find his or her music on the Internet without ever making a purchase. Why fight the tide of progress and eventually drown, when you easily surf the waves to the shores of financial success.
The Internet is full of cool places to sell music such as iTunes, ReverbNation, CDBaby, and the like; however these places or saturated with tons of bigger named artists who actually have a marketing budget. Since you're broke and disenfranchised you will take another route. Here is a thought, give your music away for free. Shit, who doesn't like free? I guarantee the more of your music you give away the more people will buy it from you. By giving your fans and potential fans give-a-ways you earn their trusts and loyalty to your brand. With you, they know what to expect, and if your music is "hot" then expect to sell tons of it as a result of giving it way for free.
Still not sure? Check this out. In the 2010 article by Mike Masnick titled, The Future Of Music Business Models (And Those Who Are Already There), Mike explains how musician and experimentalist Trent Reznor of Nine Inch Nails made $750,000.00 dollars in less than two days by giving his music away on his website. Reznor offered fans a $300 Ultra-Deluxe Limited Edition album Package. He promoted it as a limited pressing of only 2500 units. This package included DVD videos, vinyl, photo images, and of course his album-you know one that he is giving away separately for free. Because Reznor built his relationship with his fans by providing them an opportunity to sample his music for free, he was able to turn consumers to customers by offering the music bundles that weren't available any place else in the world.
Stop focusing so hard on making a few pennies that you allow the dollars to slip by. The music industry is about long-term stability, community, and boundless artistic expression. You will never become truly successful until you can build an army of followers who would rather go hungry than be without your music. Using your current resource pool, come up with clever ways to turn your consumers into customers. For example, give away your music and then sell your fans an opportunity to come hangout with you in the studio or even record a verse on your album. Sell autograph t-shirts and hats, instructional videos, books, documentaries, or what ever goods and services that your fans would appreciate, enjoy, and most importantly purchase. In this new paradigm of music it's more about selling your brand then your music so why not just give it all away?
As always learn the business that you are in... peace

blackredyellow

Jeanwah wrote:

quimby20 wrote:

How about this Ian...... Stop charging $45.00 for a show where you do the same setlist that you could mail in every night. You shows are 14 songs long...... Who's ripping who off?????

Ever think of why the shows are so expensive? It's because of piracy!

Not saying it's right, but piracy has really nothing to do with the cost of concerts.

quimby20

blackredyellow wrote:

Jeanwah wrote:

quimby20 wrote:

How about this Ian...... Stop charging $45.00 for a show where you do the same setlist that you could mail in every night. You shows are 14 songs long...... Who's ripping who off?????

Ever think of why the shows are so expensive? It's because of piracy!

Not saying it's right, but piracy has really nothing to do with the cost of concerts.

No, the costs of concerts has everything to do with Piracy. This is the only way they make money these days. So why not give us our money's worth. From the big boys, Pearl Jam and Springsteen are the only ones (my opinion) who make the concert experience worthwhile. Widespread Panic does a good job also. Newer acts like Cage the Elephant, Gaslight Anthem, Against Me! and The Hold Steady do a great job for like $20 a show. Just saying.

Jason P

Does anyone know the number of copies sold that a #12 ranking would equate to in 1994?

Kel Varnsen

satansbed wrote:

Kel Varnsen wrote:

satansbed wrote:

the real money is in touring anyway, heck if people download music for free that they otherwise wouldn't buy and like it and go to a concert and pay 40 quid for a ticket its much better for the band

The whole idea that the real money is in touring sort of assumes that people are already familiar with the bands they want to go see (and they can sell enough tickets to cover their expenses and make a profit). I mean sure I will drop 120 bucks for a couple of tickets to Pearl Jam no problem. But I don't have the time or the energy to seek out bands I have never heard of, even if their music is free. So if bands are left up to their own devices to promote their music and tours they are going to have to work a hell of a lot harder for if they are lucky the same amount of touring money.

but in your case regardless of if there was pirating or not you wouldn't be going to new bands gigs regularly or listening to their music, but the people who do have the time or energy will download the music and then will go to the gigs.

The issue which seems to elude many people on this topic is not people sharing music and movies, as that has been happening since they started recording things. I mean, when you where young they did it on audio cassette and with VCRs.

The issue is the corporations. They have a crappy business model. It is about three decades out of date. Because of this they have no way to maximize their profits and have done what many corporations today do to raise revenue, turn to litigation.

Record companies in particular have a horrible business model. They throw money at a list of artists to see what sticks, then pump more money into what the public seems to like. This scattershot model means large amounts of money is throw around and wasted. Smaller labels have it right by using todays technology to target their audience.

Smaller labels also realise that the money is in live performances and not in record sales. Artists make a killing off live performances. If you think about larger artists that would play large venues, they make hundreds of thousands in a single night, in a matter of hours. They are not missing any meals. Even smaller artists support themselves these days on live gigs. Focus should be on live events and records should be used more as a tool for promotion rather than a revenue stream that must be protected by implementing draconian legal measures.

People have always shared music and movies. Traveling bards, Shakespearian theatre groups, and other artists have been around since time began sharing art they witnessed elsewhere.

Don't get me wrong, if you claim to have created something and that something isn't your work, thats a crime. If you make a living selling someone elses work without their consent, again you should be punished. But the whole idea people should be punished for doing something that has been done for centuries so that a small group of multi-national corporations can give a bigger dividend to their investors is something no one should accept.

I see what you are saying about record companies, but at the same time I think they serve an important purpose. I mean for a small band to get famous I think it takes three things talent, hard work and a knowledge of the system and how promotion works. The first two a band can of course do on their own, but the third one is a lot harder, and if bands have to handle promotion and the business aspect themselves, I can see a lot more bands justs giving up before ever making it big. I mean sure a record company takes a ton of money off CD sales. But at the same time, those are the dudes who know how to promote bands, and get them on the radio and that sort of thing. If bands all of the sudden don't have that and have to do all their own promotion, I see a lot of bands having to do a lot more touring in crappy vans before they hit it big and having to work for a lot longer. And probably a lot of bands just saying screw it and giving up before they get the chance to make it big. So sure the huge band that can sell out an arena can make a ton of money in a few hours. But if bands have to promote themselves I see a lot more bands being stuck in the touring on their own and playing crappy club stage and never making it to that level.

satansbed

Kel Varnsen wrote:

I see what you are saying about record companies, but at the same time I think they serve an important purpose. I mean for a small band to get famous I think it takes three things talent, hard work and a knowledge of the system and how promotion works. The first two a band can of course do on their own, but the third one is a lot harder, and if bands have to handle promotion and the business aspect themselves, I can see a lot more bands justs giving up before ever making it big. I mean sure a record company takes a ton of money off CD sales. But at the same time, those are the dudes who know how to promote bands, and get them on the radio and that sort of thing. If bands all of the sudden don't have that and have to do all their own promotion, I see a lot of bands having to do a lot more touring in crappy vans before they hit it big and having to work for a lot longer. And probably a lot of bands just saying screw it and giving up before they get the chance to make it big. So sure the huge band that can sell out an arena can make a ton of money in a few hours. But if bands have to promote themselves I see a lot more bands being stuck in the touring on their own and playing crappy club stage and never making it to that level.

but that would happen anyway the cream will then rise

Kel Varnsen

satansbed wrote:

Kel Varnsen wrote:

I see what you are saying about record companies, but at the same time I think they serve an important purpose. I mean for a small band to get famous I think it takes three things talent, hard work and a knowledge of the system and how promotion works. The first two a band can of course do on their own, but the third one is a lot harder, and if bands have to handle promotion and the business aspect themselves, I can see a lot more bands justs giving up before ever making it big. I mean sure a record company takes a ton of money off CD sales. But at the same time, those are the dudes who know how to promote bands, and get them on the radio and that sort of thing. If bands all of the sudden don't have that and have to do all their own promotion, I see a lot of bands having to do a lot more touring in crappy vans before they hit it big and having to work for a lot longer. And probably a lot of bands just saying screw it and giving up before they get the chance to make it big. So sure the huge band that can sell out an arena can make a ton of money in a few hours. But if bands have to promote themselves I see a lot more bands being stuck in the touring on their own and playing crappy club stage and never making it to that level.

but that would happen anyway the cream will then rise

Maybe but I also see a lot of good acts who might have gotten discovered in their early 20's and getting famous thanks to record company money behind them, just giving up because getting into your 30's and touring small clubs on your own to promote yourself is a kind of shitty way to make money when you have actual bills to pay.