Ricofencer asks: "After reading Courtney Love's rant a thought occurred to me. In her speech, Courtney makes reference to a change in copyright law that makes recorded music works for hire. This transfers the copyright to the record label, away from the artist. Yet, Metallica's actions against Napster were based upon the premise that their copyrights were violated. If their works were covered by the new law, doesn't that mean that they do not in fact have any copyrights regarding their recorded works? How would that affect the demands they made of Napster? Can Metallica, and now Dr. Dre make demands of Napster based on copyrights they think they may have but may legally be held by their record labels? Or do Metallica and Dr. Dre actually hold the copyrights of their recorded works? (I don't know, I don't have a Metallica album at hand to examine)" If this is true, this would put the Napster suits (and Metallica's own claims) in an interesting light, wouldn't it? However, even if Metallica and Dre no longer retain the copyrights to their work don't they, as the original performers, have the right to act in their record companies' behalf?