“ Sad But True ”: Why Metallica ’ s Fans Continue to Fail Them ( and Not Vice Versa ) Twenty Years After the Napster Lawsuit
not forgive it , condone it , or explain it as an understandable reaction to “ overtly elitist ” musicians such as Ulrich , who had become corrupt by evil corporate influences operating in the twentieth-century entertainment marketplace ( 112 ). Moreover , I maintain that Smialek ’ s admonishment of Ulrich for “ protecting his own interests as an auteur in control of his own work ” and behaving like an “ artist-as genius ” who is desperately holding onto “ deeply imbedded ” Romantic “ ideals of authorship and control of one ’ s art ” ( 112 ) is unfortunate and misguided . Such artist mockery is born of modern academic groupthink , a frightening ideological movement in our universities that has contributed to a widespread societal disrespect of copyright authors , among other evils . When viewed from the lens of this collective mentality , it is not difficult to understand why Metallica ’ s fans took such bitter and ongoing offense by the band ’ s decision to expose Napster ’ s collectivist business model to the light of day .
THE PURPOSE OF AUTHORSHIP IN COPYRIGHT LAW
Smialek ’ s brief comments on the concept of authorship in copyright law take up less than a single page of his article ; however , the meaning these words convey speaks volumes . His castigation of Ulrich as an elitist musician is perfectly representative of the manner in which contemporary academics routinely decry the traditional principles of autonomy and individuality that are deeply embedded within the constitutional origins of our country , which was founded as a constitutional republic . Indeed , Article I , Section 8 of the US Constitution�commonly referred to as the Progress Clause�contains a short but important blurb that empowers and instructs Congress to enact copyright laws that benefit both authors and their audiences , explicitly recognizing that “ individual expression is valuable in itself , deserving
13