Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

The Rise and Fall of Napster

Posted by michael on Sun Apr 20, 2003 03:43 PM
from the those-who-can't,-write-books dept.
Jedi Paramedic writes "Boston.com has an interesting story about the rise and fall of everyone's favorite file-swapping service. Also the subject of a new book by Joseph Menn, the story goes into great detail about the unfortunate-but-heroic Shawn Fanning and his reluctance to admit that his uncle, who in the end masterminded little more than the lining of his own pockets, had taken advantage of him. From getting screwed in the original 70/30 split with his uncle to his uncle's refusal to loosen his iron grip on the company even at the expense of its very being, the article (and the book) go a long way in chronicling the rise and fall of Napster, and crediting Shawn for not airing the family's dirty laundry. An interesting and well-written read."
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • by Blaine Hilton (626259) on Sunday April 20 2003, @03:46PM (#5769976) Homepage
    Its too bad Napster had to do music sharing. The technology between P2P networks pionered by Napster was something though. This type of network along with open souce and GPL software, along with MD5 checksums could be a great combination.
    • Sorry, I ment to say "behind P2P", and not between. Although I'm sure that as with everything is still debatable ;-)

      Go calculate [webcalc.net] something.

    • You mean like Gnutella?

      Repeat after me: fuck MD5.

      MD5 is flawed.

      Use SHA-1 instead.

      Or better yet (some say), TigerTree.

      All of which Gnutella uses.
      • It's simply a matter of what you're testing for. MD5 is great as a checksum. Checksums are meant to find errors introduced at random by corrupted packets and the like. SHA-1 is a cryptographic hash, meant to foil malicious attackers purposefully changing the message.

        So really, fuck MD5 only if you're trying to make something secure against attackers.

      • by 0x0d0a (568518) on Sunday April 20 2003, @05:16PM (#5770277) Journal
        Repeat after me: fuck MD5.

        MD5 is flawed


        Given known current flaws in MD5, it is possible to produce bogus data that matches a given MD5, though no constraints can be placed upon the content. A trojan, for instance, cannot be placed in a MD5'd file, but the file can contain random data.

        However, one of the fairly obvious ways to use MD5 is with a "tree" of checksums -- one for the whole file, one for each half, one for each quarter, etc, etc, etc. In this case, it is not possible to produce data that will pass validation.

        eDonkey uses MD4 hashes -- which is significantly easier to attack than MD5 -- yet I haven't seen problems with forged chunks on eDonkey.

        And while SHA-1 is nice -- and it might be just easier if everyone used it -- it is significantly slower. When I tested the md5sum and shasum implementations on my Linux box, I found that shasum ran at about a sixth the speed of md5sum.
    • File sharing and P2P wasn't pioneered by Napster. Offhand, ICQ had it a while before Napster. I'm certain that there were others before them as well.
      The only thing I think was good in hindsight, was the centralization. It provided rapid searches, and nearly real time data on logged in/logged out users.
      The mentality that has emerged among Gnutella and other P2P networks is one of flagrant piracy. I have yet to see significant uptake of Gnutella and various other services for legitimate uses.
      It's annoying when millions of people suddenly decide that they are going to have their way or no way at all. I have seen a plethora of argumentation about downloading copyrighted music, movies, books, and software for and against. It has yet to convince me. The laws may be flawed but they are laws. Don't circumvent the law, reform it.
      I use music here as the mainstay of my argument simply because it's the most prevalent. However, as high speed connections make inroads into the market movies are getting pirated with equal speed.
      None of the services has done *anything* to block copyrighted content or illegal content. One of the most disturbing things is the distribution of child pornography on these networks. Rudimentary filtering controls on both server side and client side could get rid of most copyrighted works on these networks.
      The amazing thing is when you mention this to anyone is the arguments against it. "You're preventing free speech... You're attacking open source software."
      I may not like the tactics RIAA uses. In fact I hate them. They had a controlled problem with Napster, then they sued it and caused the same size problem to be distributed across hundreds of servers and countries. Dumb. However, they are right. The owners of that material have the sole right to say when, where and how that content is distributed.
      • Furthurnet [sf.net] has (twice? three times?) removed all Phish shares because some moron put up a disc or two Phish was selling from their website. Everything on it is supposed to come from tapers trading shows where the bands authorize audience taping. Some good stuff, lotsa hippies.
      • IRC (Score:3, Interesting)

        Nobody remembers IRC?!? People were downloading (and even trading) files on various IRC networks long before ICQ and Napster were around. Sometimes within IRC itself using DCC and XDCC bots, but mostly by using FTP in conjunction I believe. Sure the scale was different (as were the bandwidth and file sizes), but file trading didn't orignate with mp3's and wasn't pioneered by Napster or ICQ.

        Sure, both were innovative but I doubt either would exist as the did/do now if it wasn't for IRC coming first. To an

        • Again, I must note here that most BitTorrent servers I've seen either trade movies, software or tv shows. I have yet to hit a site that provides (i.e. iso's, databases and etc..) using BitTorrent.
          While BitTorrent, eDonkey may be efficient, and Gnutella and others ineffecient, AFAIK the majority of material on those servers is pirated works being distributed illegally.
    • by sean23007 (143364) on Monday April 21 2003, @12:32AM (#5771795) Homepage Journal
      The phenomenon of Napster was that it captivated the non technical crowd by giving them a way to find something they already wanted in a new format that was just as good as (or better than) the formats to which they had been accustomed. Napster was so popular because people wanted music. You can't make the vast populace want open source software just by creating a distribution system. Napster was the creation of a distribution system for a latent demand.
  • by telstar (236404) on Sunday April 20 2003, @03:46PM (#5769977)
    "crediting Shawn for not airing the family's dirty laundry"
    • yeah .. 'cause if he had, there'd be no reason for anyone to buy Joseph's book.
  • ...watching the musical!
    Seriously, doesn't this seem a little like 'great expectations' or something (only problem being I'm not sure if GE got made into an musical or if I'm getting it confused with something else. :-/)
  • The two "spotlight reviews" on Amazon are interesting.
  • sure... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by gimpimp (218741) on Sunday April 20 2003, @03:49PM (#5769989) Homepage
    napster's rise was stunning, as was it's fall - but it's left behined something that the riaa/mpaa CAN'T take away, and that is the concept of p2p sharing of media on the internet. pre-napster internet use and post-napster internet use are two completely different things for numerous age-groups now...

    cheers,
    • i never run a P2P client any more, not for moral reasons though, but because i am on the shittest dial up connection imaginable. I am connected at 4,800 (yes, 4 thousand 8 hundred) bits per second. Do you know how shit that is?

      yes, i am on a 56k modem, thank you BT.....
    • Re:sure... (Score:3, Interesting)

      It was there before napster, especially on IRC, napster just brought it to the masses with a pretty interface. If napster didn't do it another program would have. The idea and technology were already there, napster didn't really do anything innovative that wasn't already happening.

      -- iCEBaLM
      • Re:sure... (Score:4, Interesting)

        by yellowstone (62484) on Sunday April 20 2003, @05:09PM (#5770255) Homepage Journal
        [file sharing] was there before napster, especially on IRC, napster just brought it to the masses with a pretty interface.
        Don't minimize the importance of mass popularity. Having the ability to do something (like share files across the internet) is one thing. Having it become popular across a large population, to the point it changes the way people think about intellectual property is quite different, and far more powerful.
  • by dotgod (567913) on Sunday April 20 2003, @03:50PM (#5769991)
    Can anyone explane how Napster made money? AFAIR there were no ads on the site or in the client (save the cdnow link that was in later versions of napster). It obviously made some kind of money, however, because I remember hearing about how Shawn Fanning made a lot of money.
    • in the first 3 client releases there was a banner ad space, but it never displayed anything except a link to napster.com. I guess we should have known the business model was fkd up when the new clients had no banner space.
    • Venture Capitalists greedy bastards dumped millions into the company, I'm sure Fanning got some of it. Later on I believe they started selling shirts, I got one at OZ-fest, and some manager person came up and started yelling at the lady who gave them to us because they were supposed to sell them. After he left she gave away the rest of the shirts.
    • by lseltzer (311306) on Sunday April 20 2003, @03:55PM (#5770012)
      Your first impression was correct. It made no money at all, and any money Shawn made was out of dumb-ass investors' pockets. If you ask me, it had no serious potential for making money.
      • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 20 2003, @04:06PM (#5770045)
        You are excused.

        What if the music industry had purchased napster and released their full catalogs for free but ripped at a low bit rate say 96kb and then offer a pay version for the same data but ripped at a 320kb rate. No one could have competed because they would of had the depth of inventory. Lost opportunities. They went the other way and crushed Napster and they totally lost it by not having something to pick up the slack. Where did they think that the Napster users were going to turn when an option (Kazaa, Bearshare, et al) arrived. Lost opportunities.
              • Why get shit-quality copies of music for free from Napster, when a different p2p service would offer sales-quality copies of music for free?

                Because there's a point for many people (not all) where paying a reasonable fee for a 'legit', reliably-good datafile, is much more convenient than spending the time and effort to sift through multiple p2p networks full of unknowns.

                Of course, even if the per-track and/or monthly fee was reasonable (not in this life), I'd still have a major problem filtering my money

  • by lseltzer (311306) on Sunday April 20 2003, @03:57PM (#5770021)
    ...please scan it in, OCR it and "share" the contents with others on the net, because I don't think people should have to pay for it.
  • by l0ungeb0y (442022) on Sunday April 20 2003, @03:59PM (#5770026) Homepage Journal
    Seems though the RIAA succeeded in crushing it in doing so it has created a cultural icon that shall be remembered for years, even decades to come.

    Now, if we could just form a religion based upon the cat-like diety, perhaps we could defeat the DMCA as a form of freedom of Religion :)
  • Who is everyone? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by kidlinux (2550) <dukeNO@SPAMspacebox.net> on Sunday April 20 2003, @04:12PM (#5770066) Homepage
    I thought Napster was bloody awful.

    Audiogalaxy was far superior in every way. It's a damn shame they got shut down. I think AG's model and design is the best starting point for the music industry to get into a paid-for music downloading service.

    Unlike Napster, it just worked. I didn't have to sit around to make sure the download started and that I didn't get cut off, and I didn't have to find other sources. I just queued up as many tracks as I wanted, and AG made sure I got them.
    • by black mariah (654971) on Sunday April 20 2003, @04:20PM (#5770083)
      Amen. I would be WAY more than willing to shell out $20 a month to have AG running the way it used to. The fact that it was "set and forget" was the best thing going for it. I never liked Napster either, but AG did it right. Too bad the record companies are too stupid to see a VIABLE SOURCE OF INCOME when they see one. Dipshits.
      • Re:Who is everyone? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by NanoGator (522640) on Sunday April 20 2003, @04:47PM (#5770156) Homepage Journal
        "men. I would be WAY more than willing to shell out $20 a month to have AG running the way it used to. The fact that it was "set and forget" was the best thing going for it. I never liked Napster either, but AG did it right. Too bad the record companies are too stupid to see a VIABLE SOURCE OF INCOME when they see one. Dipshits. "

        For $10 a month you could use Listen.com. As long as ya pay that, you have access to any song of their library. plus playlists etc. It's like a server-side MP3 locker, only they're all there. Click a song and you're listening to it within moments instead of having to wait for it to download. (then it caches so it's not like you go through that every time...)

        Not a bad deal. It's not quite perfect in that you don't get to keep the compressed version and it's Windows only. Oh well, it's not for everybody. Still, $10 is less than one CD per month.

        I'm thinking about writing up a review of it for Slashdot, but I'm concerned about whether there'd be any interest in it.
    • My favorite thing about AG was that it had a nice little linux shell client that worked alongside the web interface. You're right, it just worked and it worked well most of the time.

      giFT, Kazaa, Shareazaa and all the bullshit these days is a test of patience.
  • Too big (Score:4, Interesting)

    by harks (534599) on Sunday April 20 2003, @04:44PM (#5770146)
    I thought the problem with Napster was that it was too easy and too good. It was fast (faster than Kazaa is now) and huge (Got more results than anything I've tried since). Everyone I knew used it, even the least computer-knowledgable. Because of this it attracted too much attention and became a target large enough for everyone to go after. I believe that nothing will be as large as Napster again for this reason.
  • by wo1verin3 (473094) on Sunday April 20 2003, @04:49PM (#5770165) Homepage
    Napster will be back, here is a portion of a press release from Roxio talking about the sale of the GoBack product line to Symantec.

    "The opportunity to sell GoBack comes at a great time for Roxio as it provides an opportunity to add to our cash balances and divest an asset that is not core to our digital media strategy," said Chris Gorog, President and Chief Executive Officer of Roxio. "This transaction will enable us to bring an even greater focus to our digital media software business and the development of our new on-line music business with our Napster assets. Symantec is currently one of GoBack's largest marketing partners and it is the logical and best new home for GoBack and its customers."
  • by sielwolf (246764) on Sunday April 20 2003, @04:59PM (#5770207) Homepage Journal
    At the Rotten Library [rotten.com]. Some of the interesting parts:
    "Ultimately, Napster sold itself out to Bertelsmann, a worldwide media conglomerate (and fuckers of the first order), but by any of a number of accounts, John Fanning's clinging to control of the company to the end and demanding huge amounts of cash for its properties doomed it completely."
    and my favorite:
    For all his name being on the building, Napster had as much to do with Napster 2.0 and the growth/direction of the company as Ronald McDonald did with flipping burgers at the local Mickey D's.
  • by TerryAtWork (598364) <research@aceretail.com> on Sunday April 20 2003, @05:51PM (#5770411)
    - Finding Robert Crumb's Cheap Suit Serenaders after searching for the album in vain.

    - Same with the Wozard of Iz - AFTER I bought it on eBay... :-)

    - Getting Camarillo Brillo after finding it ONLY on a box set for $70 (thanks Frank)

    - Getting cursed out by dorks for cutting their dls off (which I never did) - then putting them on ignore

    and at the end...

    - watching as a series of mesaages from emusic came up demanding I remove the following 12 songs or get kicked off.

    - Screwing up and removing them all but one.

    - Getting kicked off.

  • The Irony? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by thebes (663586) on Sunday April 20 2003, @07:08PM (#5770714)
    I was never in the filesharing loop back in the day of napster...I'm still not that big into it right now...but doesn't it seem rather ironic that the attack on the biggest file-sharing program (Napster) spawned a horde of new p2p programs which allows the sharing of practically any digital file? Seems just like shaving myth/fact: the more often you shave...the faster it grows...the more you hit down on p2p, the more it will grow, and be defeated.
  • by hndrcks (39873) on Sunday April 20 2003, @08:23PM (#5770996) Homepage
    From the Amazon.com review of the book:

    "...an internet culture that enthusiastically stood centuries-old notions of property rights and demand-and-supply pricing firmly on its head..."

    This is farcical. The concept of making obscene amounts of money from artistic expression; indeed, the concept of art as property, is a very recent invention, since 1900 or so. This is what the media conglomerates want you to forget. Napster simply reminded us of how things were a very short while ago.

    • by syrinx (106469) on Sunday April 20 2003, @04:07PM (#5770049) Homepage
      but the only difference between Napster and shoplifting a CD is physical evidence.

      yawn. mod parent -1, troll. No one can honestly say that they think that.

      Here's a hint, if I shoplift a CD, the store doesn't have it anymore, if I use Napster, no one is deprived of anything. They're so completely different, not only are they in different ballparks, they're playing a different game.
      • by Anonymous Coward
        You're right. It more like someone using your patent to build widgets, then not paying you a licensing fee.
      • by prisoner-of-enigma (535770) on Sunday April 20 2003, @04:55PM (#5770189) Homepage
        Here's a hint, if I shoplift a CD, the store doesn't have it anymore, if I use Napster, no one is deprived of anything.

        And that's where you're wrong. You are enjoying the fruits of someone else's labors, namely that of the artist, the producer, the sound mixer, the recording booth operator, the marketing company, and all the secretaries, managers, and janitors that work for the above companies. They all work for a living, and they get paid when people buy the music that you just stole.

        That's right, you stole it. You now have something you didn't have before, and you didn't pay for it. Copyright law says you have to pay for it. Intellectual property law says you have to pay for it. Common decency says you ought to pay for it. And if the long arm of the law catches you, you can be damn sure they're going to make you pay for it.

        Look, you can hate the RIAA/MPAA all you want. I have no love for them at all. I think CD's are ridiculously overpriced, that the companies are gouging us while providing us with horrid content. I think the MPAA's control over the DVD format vis-a-vis region coding, CSS, and Macrovision is one of the most belligerent things a provider can do to a customer. However, none of that gives me the right to steal from them, and it sure as hell doesn't give you any moral credibility to be justifying your theft.

        If you had any morals or principles at all, other than your own self satisfaction at someone else's expense, you'd be content to simply boycott the labels you don't agree with and trade music from bands that allow you to legally do so. Instead, you're just content to be a thief, attempting to moralize your actions because it allows you to steal and feel smug about it.

        Face it, information is not free, nor will it ever be free unless the owner of that information chooses to make it so. Information is worth whatever the owner wishes to charge for it, and the rarer it is, the more they can charge. If you don't like it, I'm sure there's some nice socialist country somewhere that'd take you in. North Korea, for example.
            • by Galvatron (115029) on Sunday April 20 2003, @06:02PM (#5770456)
              So if I hire you and allow you to work for me for two weeks, but then deny you a paycheck, I haven't stolen anything from you, have I?

              Sorry, but that's a poor example. What if no one liked your music? You'd still be broke, even without piracy. Hence, there is no implied contract here. A more realistic example would be if you put on a fireworks display, and charged people to sit on a grassy field and watch. Then, no one came because they all realized that the fireworks would be just as visible from another park that they could sit in for free.

              The point that you're trying to make is that it's immoral to enjoy the fruits of someone's labor without compensating them for it. That's true. However, as Ronald Coase posits in his economic theory of externalities, a victim is rarely a simple innocent bystander. Most victims have put themselves in a situation where they will be victimized (Coase's classic example is that of the person who buys a house by an airport; he is a victim of noise pollution, but this is an issue he should have known about when he bought the house). In this case, the musicians are allowing themselves to be victimized by relying on an oudated economic model: profiting from the sale of pre-recorded music. The solution to this problem is not for people to hysterically shout "Stop pirating music!" The solution is to find a new model for the music industry to follow. Most likely, this will mean depending on live performances and merchandising, rather than recordings, for income. It will also likely mean that musicians of the future will have to accept lower incomes, the field will no longer be dominated by a few superstars, but by a larger number of middle class performers and an even larger number of hobbyists.

            • by moncyb (456490) on Sunday April 20 2003, @06:44PM (#5770616) Journal

              Theft, fraud (hiring someone then not paying), and copyright infringment are three different things. They require different methods of enforcement, and different levels of punishment. If I copy some of my CDs onto my hard drive so I can play them in any order I want, the RIAA may say this is "theft", but I didn't steal anything. If I play CDs on an anti-skip player and I don't pay the RIAA for "RAM buffer copies", I didn't steal anything.

              Ah! So, just because someone has a lot of something, that gives you the right to take some of it, because they "won't notice it"?

              Here is an example of why this line of thinking for copyrights is absurd:

              Lets say some bloke writes a song with the phrase "my dog fell down and he can't get up." Let's call him Dogman. The song becomes a #1 hit. In certain situations, people start using the phrase. After a while, Dogman decides using this phrase is "theft", and everyone who does so should pay him $1 each time. Would you pay Dogman just for the "right" to utter a stupid phrase? What if your dog really did fall down and couldn't get up? Should you have to pay so you could tell people?

              Yeah, my examples are more marginal than sending copies to 10,000 of your closest "friends". The point is the RIAA uses the term "theft" as newspeak to increase the range of copyright laws. Mass redistribution of music is "theft". Then any CD to tape (or CD) copying is "theft". Then storing your CD on a hard drive for convenience is "theft". Then any sort of "RAM buffer copy" is "theft". Then, any use of any words in any song is "theft".

              I think the "information wants to be free" whackos are...well...whackos. If "information" is talking to you, or you think "information" has desires like a sentient being, then you really need to see a doctor. But it doesn't mean everything they say is wrong.

          • Nobody has the right to a business model.

            I couldn't agree more. However, the method to combat this business model is to boycott their products. By stealing their product, you are intrinsically admitting that their product has value (at least to you), otherwise you wouldn't do it. You have obtained something of value, yet have given nothing of value in return. This is a one-sided transaction no matter how you look at it.

            If the artists don't get the money I would have paid -- boohoo, they can always g
    • So we can deduce Robin Hood, clue the name, had a better publicist than Napster?

    • IMHO, no its not a racist comment.

      It might have been more controversial if Fanning
      had played on the nickname in the same style that
      was used to market Vanilla Ice (or Eminem to some
      regard). But "napster" was not used in any obvious
      way other than as a brand for the company/product.

      I didn't even know about the nickname connection until
      it was mentioned in a 60 minutes interview.
      And by then it was the least interesting part of his story.

      I don't get insulted when I buy Uncle Bens rice,
      Aunt Jemima syrup, or
    • Sounds like an interesting read...Since I am morally opposed to paying book publishers...I was wondering if anyone knew where I could download a PDF copy of the book?
    • Re:Um.... (Score:3, Informative)

      Audiogalaxy... now that was a friggin' good filesharing service. Low-hassle, lots of rare stuff... excellent.

      Daniel
    • by PetWolverine (638111) on Sunday April 20 2003, @07:03PM (#5770688) Journal
      A major purpose of the internet was to distribute the load so the system could survive failures or an attack. Sadly, we have lost sight of this paradigm and allowed money and greed and corporate entities to subvert one of the best things about the 'net.

      And I always thought this would be
      the land of milk and honey
      Oh but I came to find out that it's
      all hate and money
      And there's a canopy of greed holding me down.

      --Blind Melon, Tones of Home

      Incidentally, I never would have found out about Blind Melon without P2P file sharing, and now I've bought two of their three albums (with Soup high on my to-get list). File sharing makes people less likely to buy music? The RIAA can eat me!
    • A lot of people forget that when Napster took their servers down to take some time to become copyright-compliant, they also planned, when they started the service back up, to charge for subscriptions. That's a business model, and if they hadn't been bought out at exactly that moment, they might have succeeded. It appears from this article that John Fanning made sure the company wouldn't last through this down period, forcing it to sell.
      • Re:Where is he now? (Score:4, Informative)

        by Fletch (6903) <fletch@NospaM.pobox.com> on Sunday April 20 2003, @09:57PM (#5771296) Homepage
        As a friend of Shawn's, I have to say this is just plain false. Nice little story about meeting someone though =). Maybe you met some other "Shawn Fanning" you assumed was the same?

        Anyway, he's still in the sf bay area, and has moved on to a couple of new projects: a small record label and a new company that's still very quiet.