Watch Lars Ulrich's Napster Testimony for the First Time

Footage of Metallica drummer Lars Ulrich giving his anti-Napster testimony at Capitol Hill in 2000 has appeared online for the very first time - watch it here.

Ultimate Guitar

Footage of Metallica drummer Lars Ulrich giving his infamous anti-Napster testimony in 2000 has appeared online for the first time.

In the scene below, taken from the new documentary "Downloaded" which chronicles the rise and fall of Napster (exclusive by Billboard), Ulrich is seen alongside other musicians like the Byrd's Roger McGuinn, both giving opposing views on the effect digital music will have on the music industry.

Ulrich was the most high-profile musician to speak out against Napster at the time, but was criticized by many for taking a stand. Time has proven that Ulrich's concerns about peer-to-peer music were right, after a decade of rapidly declining music sales.

"Just like a carpenter who crafts a table gets to decide if he wants to keep it, sell it, or give it away. Shouldn't we have the same options?" says Ulrich at Capitol Hill. "We want to decide what happens to our music. Not a company who has no rights to our recordings, which has never invested a penny in our music, or anything to do with its creation. The choice has been taken away from us."

Watch the clip from "Downloaded" featuring Lars Ulrich speaking out against Napster here:

Trending stories

76 comments sorted by best / new / date

comments policy
    "Just like a carpenter who crafts a table gets to decide if he wants to keep it, sell it, or give it away. Shouldn't we have the same options?" He knew the table thing was coming...
    pope668: from all those table-jokes, this one definitely is the best!
    I feel for musicians that lose money to piracy, especially non-millionaires, but it's not logical to try to limit something that can be infinitely reproduced. If I were emperor of the world I would have all music on one website for download, and the artists would be paid by how many people download their music. Everyone would win. I don't know where that money would come from, but I'd probably find a source of funding as emperor of the world.
    Spotify do it quite well, ads in between songs, or you pay for an ad-free subscription. Everyone wins (I think).
    I heard that the artists get paid an unbelievably minuscule amount in royalties from spotify
    I heard we should all believe everything we read on the internet.
    I red an article originally published on (Nov. 14, 2012) author Damon Krukowski noted "Galaxie 500's "Tugboat", for example, was played 7,800 times on Pandora that quarter, for which its three songwriters were paid a collective total of 21 cents , or seven cents each. Spotify pays better: For the 5,960 times "Tugboat" was played there, Galaxie 500's songwriters went collectively into triple digits: $1.05 (35 cents each)." ...So there's that
    I heard that, too. So for any ladies interested, I'm a French model. Bonjour.
    Sumerian Records actually posts their artists' song on YouTube because they get more money from ad revenue than Spotify would pay. So I guess it depends on the artist.
    I have music on Spotify ... Their royalty rate is laughable. Way less than a penny per stream.
    That doesn't sound unreasonable. Of course, it doesn't pay a lot if you are a small time artist getting a dozen or so plays a month, but for a bigger artist who's plays amount to six or seven figures a month, it will become more worth-while. Also, and I'm just speculating here, I wouldn't be surprised if Spotify has deals or contracts with bigger artists who bring more traffic to the service. It would be in everyone's interest for them to pay a little more to a multi-platinum selling artist in order to be allowed to feature their music and therefore bring more user onto the site.
    Spotify is a pretty good idea, although it doesn't pay too much. But still, pays more than piracy.
    and people don't have the file after listening so there is still incentive to buy the music.
    yea spotify has great royalty deals, I think I read somewhere that they were actually losing money because of the royalties they have to pay.
    Bad Romance by Lady gaga go played 1 million times on a stream servce and Lady Gaga received $160 for her trouble.
    Wasn't the original argument that spurred ALL of this on because someone had leaked a Load demo and supposedly, it wasn't mixed and mastered but played on air without permission? and that's the only reason he was annoyed? Or is that what Cliff Burnstein made him say?? Good old Cliff, he sleeps in a dollar shaped bed.
    No it was the song I Disappear. Apparently they were still in the studio and it was alredy online. End of the day....look whats happened to music sales. People almost can't stomach buying music, they don't think it's worthy of their dollar. Thats a bit of a shame but the music industry should have move MUCH quicker to a solution rather than trying to turn back time.
    Ah yes, I Disappear. Didn't that song in itself cause an upraw cus it was made for or used on a movie? To all those people who were on about them "selling out". In England, we used to tape songs off of the radio as kids. This was just the next step I guess. It damages sales but also puts the music to a much wider fanbase. I'm sure Lars sees that now.
    Is this documentary on The Pirate Bay yet? I wouldn't mind watching it
    Is this documentary on The Pirate Bay yet? I wouldn't mind watching it
    Is this documentary on The Pirate Bay yet? I wouldn't mind watching it
    sorry stealing is stealing whether its from a millionaire or a garage band go back to Sherwood Forest robin hood
    I have yet to watch this video, but non-bearded Dave Grohl, to me, is not as credible as bearded current Dave Grohl.
    Dave makes a good point. but it only works if other people are still buying the cds as well. I like having cds, thats why I bought One by One. I liked the cover art and the book, everything he just said. Long time agoooo. Some good songs there
    hope this guy has some extra cash put back when he doesn't get paid for his work lol
    That is that but look at this interview back in 2008 for global metal.
    He has changed his views on piracy and perhaps even supports it. Just hope he isn't sucking up for the interviews
    Is it just me or does he sound kind of dumb regardless of his standpoint? No offense.
    the internet is what economists call "disruptive tech" like electricity the automobile and the printing press. 12 year on and people are just now starting to get a handle on how the tech the economy the artist and their fans interrelate
    "If kids can get their hands on the music, that's a great thing"... I guess they cut the part where he says "if they pay for it legally". I heard a story that Lars had a go at some bum for asking him for a cigarette once, cus apparently he works ****ing hard for those cigarettes. None of us give a shite anyway we just want a new album.
    I don't understand why Lars gets so much shit for this. I mean, yeah, he's a douche, but this isn't the reason for it. There were many other high-profile artists who spoke out against Napster besides Ulrich. Fucking Dr. Dre filed the same damn suit against Napster a month after Metallica did and didn't get shit for it.
    It's because people think that they are going after the little guy, but really they were watching their backs. The story is that Lars was listening to the radio one day and heard "I Disappear" before it had been released. They were able to trace it back to Napster and realized that there were a lot of unreleased demos that ended up on the site. Dr. Dre asked Napster to remove his works and Napster refused, so that spark his suit. Madonna had a song that wasn't released and was only in it's demo stages, and that found it's way onto Napster. Metallica gets a lot of flack for this, but when their music is being played by people who did outright steal it (stealing being that the song was put onto Napster before it was supposed to be released) it makes sense that they would want to say something about it.
    Technically speaking, piracy can be a boon to many lesser known musicians... People download and share songs for free that makes them famous over a wider mainstream audience, giving them the much required attention... Honestly, the band royalties from the album sales comprise of only a meager portion of their income... The profits are almost wholly swallowed by the record labels... Most of the income earned by the band members are the courtesy of live concerts and gear endorsements and so on.. So technically speaking, lesser known bands should embrace piracy rather than defying it, even though it's highly immoral... Think of countries like mine (India) where most labels have stopped their sales, even blocking their youtube channels... There are plenty of countries that have the same issue... People have to import albums at exorbitant exchange rates and hence the artist's audience is badly restricted there... However, much thanks to the internet the issue can be overcome and nothing is impossible if you could take the right steps... Then again, the same can't be said about mainstream widely known bands who sell out gold and platinum... In their case, royalties comprise of a substantial amount of their income owing to the comparably much larger volume of sales compared to the lesser known artists, albeit the hungry record labels... Hence this issue is best left undebated...
    what lars ment to say was Just like a carpenter who crafts a James hetfield, He gets to decide if he wants to keep it, sell it, or give it away for having a few drinks.
    Yeah as much as I want music to be about the music, it'd be sucky if you couldn't support yourself doing the thing you love/work hard for nothing. Also I highly doubt Metallica would be long dead without piracy. It's all about image and branding to me, no one forgets about Metallica because of how familiar and established that name is.
    It's funny how Roger says I haven't seen royalties from Mr. Tambourine Man. Check with Bob Dylan for that one.