Sorry for the tangent, but I gotta defend my position:
They were pretty whiney about that weren't they? I guess they wanted all the millions of dollars that they felt entitled to.
It was more the fact that Metallica was blindly towing the record label's line of "anything new is bad".
Instead of working to cultivate online downloading in its' infancy and
really making some money, record labels tried to quash the trend with threats of lawsuits and jailtime. This is because, like many big businesses, they failed to see the big picture... That innovation is really a
good thing.
Metallica became the poster child for the RIAA's witch hunt of naiive teenagers and stupid college students. Remember this is still in the days when bands (like Metallica) would release one or two good songs on a 14-song album of trash, just to sell the album. Who wants to pay $18 for an album which only has one really listen-able song on it? Napster came along and it was a ray of single-hit sunshine in a world of stinky albums... If the RIAA had attempted to partner with Napster to produce an affordable distribution medium in the beginning instead of trying to shut them down, just think how much money both parties would have made!
This is why I respect Radiohead so much. I don't necessarily like all of their musical styles, but they embrace new ideas that the dying record labels are scared to death of.
http://mashable.com/2007/10/19/radiohead-album-sales/
