Le 9 juillet, en plein Summer Sanatarium Tour, Lars s'est envolé pour Washington pour une rencontre
avec le Senate Judiciary Committee. L'audience avait lieu le 11 et, au-delà des procès déjà en
cour, portait sur une question fondamentale : est-il nécessaire de codifier le downloading sur le
net ? Autrement dit, le gouvernement doit-il légiférer ces pratiques, qui soulèvent de légitimes
questions de droits d'auteur ?
Diverses personnalités étaient invités à témoigner devant le sénateur de l'Utah, Orrin Hatch.
Dans le camp des plaignants : Lars Ulrich (bien sûr), Fred Erlich (l'un des présidents
de Sony Music), Hilary Rosen (la présidente de la RIAA, le syndicat des majors). Dans le
camp des accusés : Michael Robertson (le PDG de MP3.com), Hank Barry (le PDG de
Napster).
Voici le texte plaidé par Lars lui-même :
Statement of Lars Ulrich
Before the Committee on the Judiciary
United States Senate
July 11, 2000
Mr. Chairman, Senator Leahy, Members of the Committee, my name is Lars Ulrich. I was born in
Denmark. In 1980, as a teenager, my parents and I came to America. I started a band named Metallica
in 1981 with my best friend James Hetfield. By 1983 we had released our first record, and by
1985 we were no longer living below the poverty line. Since then, we've been very fortunate to
achieve a great level of success in the music business throughout the world. It's the classic American
dream come true. I'm very honored to be here in this country, and to appear in front of the
Senate Judiciary Committee today.
Earlier this year, while completing work on a song for the movie Mission Impossible-2, we were
startled to hear reports that a work-in-progress version was already being played on some U.S
radio stations. We traced the source of this leak to a corporation called Napster. Additionally,
we learned that all of our previously recorded copyrighted songs were, via Napster, available
for anyone around the world to download from the Internet in a digital format known as MP3. As you
are probably aware, we became the first artists to sue Napster, and have been quite vocal about
it as well. That's undoubtedly why you invited me to this hearing.
We have many issues with Napster. First and foremost: Napster hijacked our music without asking.
They never sought our permission-our catalog of music simply became available as free downloads
on the Napster system.
I don't have a problem with any artist voluntarily distributing his or her songs through any
means the artist elects-- at no cost to the consumer, if that's what the artist wants. But just
like a carpenter who crafts a table gets to decide whether to keep it, sell it or give it away,
shouldn't we have the same options? My band authored the music which is Napster's lifeblood.
We should decide what happens to it, not Napster -- a company with no rights in our recordings,
which never invested a penny in Metallica's music or had anything to do with its creation.
The choice has been taken away from us.
What about the users of Napster, the music consumers? It's like each of them won one of those
contests where you get turned loose in a store for five minutes and get to keep everything you
can load into your shopping cart. With Napster, though, there's no time limit and everyone's a
winner-except the artist. 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're not fortunate enough to own a computer, there's only one way to assemble a music
collection the equivalent of a Napster user's: theft. Walk into a record store, grab what you
want and walk out. The difference is that the familiar phrase a computer user hears, "File's done,"
is replaced by another familiar phrase-"You're 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 also contribute our inspiration and perspiration. It's what we do for a
living. Even though we're passionate about it, it's our job.
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 company employees and provide
programming for numerous radio and television stations. Add it all up and you have an industry
with many jobs--a very few glamorous ones like ours -- and a greater number of demanding ones covering
all levels of the pay scale for 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
it does. Most artists are barely earning 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's clear, then, that if music is free for downloading, the music industry is not viable;
all the jobs 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 that musicians should work
for free. Nobody else works for free. Why should musicians?
In economic terms, music is referred to as intellectual property, as are films, television programs,
books, computer software, video games, and the like. As a nation, the U.S has excelled in the
creation of intellectual property, and collectively, it is this country's most valuable export.
The backbone for the success of our intellectual property business is the protection that Congress
has provided with the copyright statutes. No information-based industry can thrive without this
protection. Our current political dialog about trade with China is focused on how we must get
that country to respect and enforce copyrights. How can we continue to take that position if we
let our own copyright laws wither in the face of technology?
Make no mistake, Metallica is not anti-technology. When we made our first album, the majority of
sales were in the vinyl record format. By the late 1980's, cassette sales accounted for over 50%
of the market. Now, the compact disc dominates. If the next format is a form of digital downloading
from the Internet with distribution and manufacturing savings passed on to the American consumer,
then, of course, we will embrace that format too.
But how can we embrace a new format and sell our music for a fair price when someone, with a
few lines of code, and no investment costs, creative input or marketing expenses, simply gives it
away? How does this square with the level playing field of the capitalist system? In Napster's
brave new world, what free market economy models support our ability to compete? The touted "new
paradigm" that the Internet gurus tell us we Luddites must adopt sounds to me like old-fashioned
trafficking in stolen goods.
We have to find a way to welcome the technological advances and cost savings of the Internet
while not destroying the artistic diversity and the international success that has made our intellectual
property industries the greatest in the world. Allowing our copyright protections to deteriorate
is, in my view, bad policy, both economically and artistically.
To underscore what I've spoken about today, I'd like to read from the "Terms of Use" section
of the Napster Internet web site. When you use Napster you are basically agreeing to a contract
that includes the following terms:
"This web site or any portion of this web site may not be reproduced, duplicated, copied, sold,
resold, or otherwise exploited for any commercial purpose that is not expressly permitted by Napster."
"All Napster web site design, text, graphics, the selection and arrangement thereof, and all Napster
software are CopyrightÓ 1999-00 Napster Inc. All rights reserved Napster Inc."
"Napster, the logo and all other trademarks, service marks and trade names of Napster appearing
on this web site are owned by Napster. Napster's trademarks, logos, service marks, and trade names
may not be used in connection with any product or service that is not Napster's.
Napster itself wants--and surely deserves--copyright and trademark protection. Metallica
and other creators of music and intellectual property want, deserve and have a right to that same
protection.
In closing, I'd like to read to you from the last paragraph of a New York Times column by Edward
Rothstein:
"Information doesn't want to be free; only the transmission of information wants to be free.
Information, like culture, is the result of a labor and devotion, investment and risk; it has a
value. And nothing will lead to a more deafening cultural silence than ignoring that value and
celebrating...[companies like] Napster running amok."
Mr. Chairman, Senator Leahy and Members of the Committee, the title of today's hearing asks
the question, "The Future of the Internet: Is there an Upside to Downloading"? My answer is yes.
However, as I hope my remarks have made clear, this can only occur when artists' choices are
respected and their creative efforts protected.
Thank you.
En substance, les plaignants demandent un contrôle de la musique sur le net, par souci de protection
du copyright. En face, Hank Barry a insisté sur la popularité de son logiciel Napster (plus
de 20 millions d'utilisateurs) et défend son bon droit : "Napster ne copie pas les fichiers.
Napster ne fournit pas la technologie qui permet de copier des fichiers. Il ne produit pas de
fichiers MP3. [...] Napster facilite juste la communication entre personnes intéressées par la
musique. C'est un retour à l'approche initiale de partage de l'information sur l'internet
[...] qui est réellement révolutionnaire."
Finalement, le sénateur Orrin Hatch a proposé la recherche d'un compromis : "une coopération
créative serait bénéfique à tout le monde", selon ses dires. Entre nouvelles technologies et
intérêts des artistes, la victoire n'a pas encore choisi son camp.
