Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Music Media The Internet

Napster Tries Again 223

Posted by CowboyNeal
from the back-with-a-new-mix dept.
intheory writes "As it states on the site, The Cat is Almost Back. Napster, following a singificant delay, beleagured by legal and ethical rhetoric, reappears as a pay-to-play service. With some similarities to Apple's iTunes, will Napster regain its place as the premiere music distribution service? Additionally, the man behind the magic, Shawn Fanning, receives a thoughtful write up." I'm pretty wary of the new Napster, as the only thing it seems to share with its predecessor is the name.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Napster Tries Again

Comments Filter:
  • Free > Cheap to most, as long as the quality of the free is anywhere near the quality of the cheap. Especially when you don't have to sign up for anything with a credit card or so with the free version.
    • Re:Won't work (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Mod Me God (686647) on Thursday October 09, 2003 @06:22PM (#7177055)
      Free > Cheap??? No way, surely Free Cheap.

      And that is what matters. They charge for the equivilant of a 128kbps MP3 but offer it in DRM Windows Media format.

      Sure, you can charge for a product if it is better quality than a free product (e.g., charge for a 320kbps MP3 when these are damn hard to get hold of on Kazaa etc) or offers better availability (the benefit of Kazaa and AudioGalaxy were that the had VERY rare tracks that were not available in the shops.

      But the new Napster looks set to offer a mediocre crippled file format of a limited availability of songs that can be got for free, at a better quality level, for free on Kazaa, WinMX et all.

      $9.95 for an album of 128kbps DRM WM files??? No way. The make a few pennsies, but only from competition to iTunes not from converting sustomers. The Napster brand counts for nothing.

    • Re:Won't work (Score:3, Insightful)

      by King_TJ (85913)
      Well, I think all of these online music pay-download services will, at best, receive only limited success - UNLESS/UNTIL they start offering more exclusive content.

      If you think about it, people like receiving something tangible for their money. If you buy a piece of software or a music album in the store, you get a phyical piece of media you can take home and put on a shelf. Not only that, but it typically has some printed material too (instructions in the case of software, or liner notes and photos for
    • Re:Won't work (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Fancia (710007)
      Not necessarily. In places like Taiwan, piracy used to be so rampant that it was hard to buy legit CDs. Now, however, companies have started putting out CDs which, while not as cheap as the pirated versions, are of a reasonable price; and this is causing piracy to lower significantly.
  • by inertia@yahoo.com (156602) * on Thursday October 09, 2003 @06:07PM (#7176890) Homepage Journal
    Here's what I got whilest using my TiBook:

    We're sorry, Napster is not currently compatible with your operating system.

    Napster is currently compatible with Windows XP/2000. Windows 95, Windows NT and the Mac OS are not supported at this time.

    If you are planning on using Napster on this computer, the service will not be compatible and you should discontinue registration. If you will use Napster on a different computer, with a compatible operating system, please continue.


    What and odd thing to say. They also don't even mention Windows 98, which in all the stats pages I've seen, is currently between XP and 2000 in popularity. Well, good luck to them.
    • They appear to have designed for XP, and just happened to not have used anything incompatible with 2000 in the process so it works there too. XP and 2000 are very close relatives, while 98 is a whole different beast.
    • Here's what I got whilest using my TiBook

      Please don't complain about lack of the new Napster on Mac OS X because 1. remember that it took a while for Napster to make a Mac client for its old network, and 2. as a TiBook owner, you're in on the beta test of iTunes Music Store, which seems equivalent to what the new Napster offers ($1 singles, $10 albums).

      They also don't even mention Windows 98

      Because of its (lack of a) security model, Microsoft's Windows 9x operating systems aren't that great for mu

      • Microsoft's Windows 9x operating systems aren't that great for much other than running legacy DOS apps.
        Yeah but it is supporting Windows 95. I think the original poster found it odd that 98/ME was excluded, seemingly specifically. How 95 could be better is anyone's guess.
        • Nope
          Napster is currently compatible with Windows XP/2000. Windows 95, Windows NT and the Mac OS are not supported at this time.


          The original poster was stating it is weird that it doesn't work on 9x. Since there is still a big market share there.

          Either way, it's bigger than Apple so maybe they have a chance. Snicker...
      • Because of its (lack of a) security model

        Exactly. To be more specific Win98 lacks a security model against the owner, unlike WinXP.

        -
    • Strange... (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Enucite (10192)
      That's exactly what I was expecting when I signed up (Linux/Firebird)... but everything went through just fine.

      As far as the service... Well, I'll probably end up getting the 5 free tracks on a friend's box (since I don't have Windows) and then never using it again--barring the release of a Linux client. *laughs*

      I figured it's worth a try just to find out how it works and what restrictions they have, then if the topic ever comes up I can speak from experience.
    • The DRM support is more bulletproof on XP/2000.
  • New Napster has nothing to do with only Napster. Roxio just bought the name, they are hoping for name recognition, nothing else.
  • With some similarities to Apple's iTunes, will Napster regain its place as the premiere music distribution service? ..no..
  • It's Pressplay (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 09, 2003 @06:08PM (#7176905)
    Roxio bought PressPlay and Napster's "brand". Then they re-launch PressPlay with the Napster's name.

    There ya go. It's just PressPlay with a different face and a different owner. Same tech team.

    • Not really... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by ragingmime (636249)
      There ya go. It's just PressPlay with a different face and a different owner.

      Well, not quite. This Press release [napster.com] states that pressplay was the "foundation" for Napster, but from the information [napster.com] on their site, it sounds like Napster has a bunch more features, a different pricing structure, and a larger catalog of music. So yeah, it's from the same company as pressplay, and it shares some of the same software, but it's hardly "PressPlay with the Napster's name."
  • by Necrobruiser (611198) on Thursday October 09, 2003 @06:09PM (#7176915)
    You'll never shut down the REAL Napster!!!
    • What's left of the old Napster [sourceforge.net] doesn't appear to have been worked on for two years.

  • Well, I guess now the only thing that counts its the price and the selection of songs... But the P2P networks will still be up and running!
  • Napster is dead (Score:5, Insightful)

    by onyxruby (118189) <{onyxruby} {at} {comcast.net}> on Thursday October 09, 2003 @06:10PM (#7176924)
    Napster is dead, they surrendered to the RIAA and turned coat. The service is now strictly DRM, and is nothing more than the fulfillment of a record exec's wet dream. Refuse to fulfill the fantasy of the RIAA, boycott Napster. Nothing more to say here.
    • ...I still keep a folder called "Napster".
    • Things to boycott:
      1. RIAA - started after they shut down Napster
      2. Napster - started after they restarted Napster
    • Well said. I remember napster. This is not napster. Napster was cool.
    • As far as I see the new napster is a iTunes look-a-like with all the benefits/drawbacks of iTunes but the additional feature that they have a all-you-can-listen offer for $9,95.

      But while yesterday the announcement of iTunes for Windows was hailed by the slashdot community as a giant leap for all mankind, the new napster service is the 5th column of the RIAA brought upon us to further the goal of destruction of geekdom

      Is there any valid reason for that?

      • But while yesterday the announcement of iTunes for Windows was hailed by the slashdot community as a giant leap for all mankind, the new napster service is the 5th column of the RIAA brought upon us to further the goal of destruction of geekdom

        Is there any valid reason for that?


        Agreed, I still can't get the comparison out of my head.

        While Apple zealots cream in their jeans about "not so bad" DRM that you only have to waste time and CDs to convert from AAC, the world + dog is bitching about a service usi
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 09, 2003 @06:10PM (#7176925)
    Slashdot needs a section for press releases instead of publishing them as actual news/story articles.
  • How about a song? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    for old times sake, maybe a nice Metallica ditty:

    MASTER! MASTER!

    Master of "puppets" pulling strings..

    I think you know where I'm going with this.

    • for old times sake, maybe a nice Metallica ditty:

      MASTER! MASTER!

      Master of "puppets" pulling strings..

      I think you know where I'm going with this.

      There actually was a flash parody of Metallica in which they sang an anti-napster song to the tune of Master of Puppets but of course saying "Napster" instead of "Master." IT was some funny shit...

      • Courtesy of Thickliquid and the Internet Wayback Machine: Napster Of Puppets [archive.org]

        On the internet today
        Profits crumbling away
        Through high speed internet connections
        Our new CD wont even sell
        Yet you know the lyrics well
        Our fans are dubbed the Unforgiven
        If you use it you will see
        I'll bring you to your knees
        We're dedicated to
        How we're banning you.....

        DSL is faster
        Download from Napster
        Run searches faster
        God Damn that Napster
        Napster!

        Napster can suck it, our music ain't free
        Fork out some cash and buy my CD
        Banned b

  • We *all* know that Seth Green was the inventor of Napster... because he liked to Nap!
    "I am the napster!" [imdb.com]
  • Let's face it... this service is Roxio's attempt to build their clone of iTunes, BuyMusic, PressPlay, etc. The main gimmick of this one is just the fact that they bought the rights to the Napster name and logo at the bankruptcy auction, so they get to slap that name on it rather than having to create a new brand from zero.
  • Napster spoof (Score:4, Informative)

    by pheph (234655) on Thursday October 09, 2003 @06:12PM (#7176942) Homepage
    Downhill battle [downhillbattle.org] has posted a great spoof of what the new napster website might look like [downhillbattle.org]

    Now that we have to pay for napster, it's not that cool anymore.
    But now that I'm out of college, I'm not that cool anymore either.

    • very nice.

      I do find it strange that on the actual site [napstar.com] there is no demo or list of songs/artists (or at least not one jumping off the page). In fact, I'm not even sure if the new napster is web-based or software that is installed to retrieve music.

      I just hope they didn't remove the option to sort servers by connection speed, I don't want to waste time looking for someone sharing the song I want over a fast connection...oh wait, we have to pay now don't we?.
      • >In fact, I'm not even sure if the new napster is web-based or software that is installed to retrieve music.

        It's a standalone Win2K/XP only application. You do your downloading from there, you do your playing from there, you do any burning that you're allowed to from there. Alternatively, as it's just a WMA DRM crippled player, you can use a plugin for Windows Media Player to turn your DRM crippled data into audio, as long as they don't revoke your license.

        > just hope they didn't remove the o

    • "Napster was only cool was because it was free"


      Slashdot editorial team called, they want their copy editor back.

      .02

      cLive ;-)

  • by kevin_conaway (585204) on Thursday October 09, 2003 @06:13PM (#7176949) Homepage
    Ive said it before and ill say it again, cdbaby.com kicks ass. They let you listen to 2 minutes of 5-7 songs off an album to see if you like it, if you do buy it, if not go on to the next one! All their albums are reviewed by the editors to give you description of what the music is like. Plus, after your first purchase, they send you a free cd with each purchase thereafter (usually a mix cd which is pretty good.)

    Disclaimer: all though this read like an ad, its not. Im just a satisfied customer.

    This is a great alternative to emusic and such pay for play setups where you waste a quota trying to find music you like.
    • Here I sit, digitizing my mom's old 45s. I'm going to make CD's full of wave files and oggs. You can bet your ass I'll give anyone a coppy who wants one. Because I'm useing a free operating system, I don't have to worry about the fucking though police breaking down my door and hauling me off. So, the music scene lives offline as it always has.

      RIAA, you don't have what I want and you will never keep anyone from getting and sharing the things they enjoy. Much of the music I'm digitizing is no longer pub

    • No mainstream artists = will never fly with the mainstream crowd.
      • > No mainstream artists = will never fly with the mainstream crowd.

        That's the same mainstream crowd that are giving RIAA labels less money every quarter.

        Hmm, in all the RIAA's whining about how they're being denied their rightful profit, I never see them mentionining sales to other labels. And I never hear those other labels complaining.

        Does anyone have figures?

  • ...so I could yowl, "ME TOO! ME TOO! ME TOO!"

    So I guess they decided not to compete on price. I must say I'm shocked, just like a deaf old cat snuck up upon and grabbed.

  • I suppose Napster is ultimately representative of the mighty battle waged here on Slashdot. P2P sharing of music is theft. No, it's not, copyright is more limited than property rights, and besides, the music suits haven't given me any better opportunities to download music.

    Well, here's a chance for people to argue with their pocketbooks. As in the post, yes, it doesn't share many similarities with the original Napster, but so what? In an earlier posting today, I said I'd bought myself a Nomad, so I'm keen

  • I don't see what the big deal about Napster is! For the past half-hour I've been trying to download a 17 Megabyte song (Anonymous Troll's "Macintosh Harddrive Transfer Blues"), and it's taking forever on my 56K modem! On iTunes, the same transfer only takes 3 minutes!

    This is just another example of the Napster zelots promoting a more expensive, propritary technology that doesn't even include a three-button mouse...

    /Sarcasm

    • "and it's taking forever on my 56K modem! On iTunes, the same transfer only takes 3 minutes!"

      Wow! Amazing! iTunes has turned your 56k modem into an 800k DSL connection! Wow! That "Steve Jobs Reality Distortion Field" sure is effective.
  • by dilvie (713915)
    Napster was replaced with better systems a long time ago. Same name, different cat.

    The real question is, does the new napster offer advantages over competing services, such as iTunes, and if they do, what are they? Anybody in the know here? Is it easy to preview content without paying for it? Do the downloads include DRM? Watermarking? How does this new Napster work, and why should we all be rushing to sign up?
    • I recommend you peruse the taped-live launch broadcast. Napster 2.0 will really have some amazing features. For the cost of one CD ($9.95) you will have access to all 500,000 of their songs for a month. As far as I can tell, you can do whatever you want with them, although at the end of the month the files need to have their license updated by logging on to the network. Furthermore, songs are organized in such a manner that whatever you download, you can get recommendations from the editors, other users
    • by skookum (598945)
      It's based on closed source proprietary software, and riddled with restrictions. Here are some snippets from the terms of service [napster.com]:

      To access the Service, you will need to install or activate Napster's proprietary software application; from time to time, you may also be required to install other software made available through the Service (collectively this software is called the "Client"). You may also need to install certain third-party software. ...

      You may not authorize, encourage or allow any Tracks o

  • by gpinzone (531794) on Thursday October 09, 2003 @06:16PM (#7176981) Homepage Journal
    They have zero information on what kinds of files will be available and what quality they will be. I suppose the 5 tracks for free will discourage most people from continuing the service. Only thing that would worry me is that they already have your credit card number.
    • " They have zero information on what kinds of files will be available and what quality they will be."

      I have a feeling it'll be WMA. If you look at the bottom of the front page you see that it requries "Microsoft Internet Explorer 5.01 or higher, Windows Media Player 7.1 or higher, Internet connectivity."
  • If the rumors are true, iTunes for Windows and The Apple Music Store should be available next week.

    Tough timing.
    • Yes, and Napster will continue to be a footnote in the history of online music while iTunes for Windows takes Napster, BuyMusic and everything else out behind the woodshed for a good whuppin'. You heard it here first. ^_^
      • Actually, I saw it on the screen savers friday night, but since your post is from thursday, you were timetable wise earlier than tss, but I heard that itunes was comming soon to windows (perhaps in as little as a week!) on TSS. But TSS it was a little iffy on the details of when exactly, and mainly it was just leo extolling the virtues of itunes. no real predictions..

        BTW sorry to all my friends, I've been in lala land and stuck on a tin can and a string for internet... Currently I'm slobbering over a 2.5
  • Who is this Shawn Fanning person? We all know Lyle [imdb.com] is the true creator of Napster! He is after all ... The Napster [imdb.com].
  • It's not Napster. (Score:2, Insightful)

    by LamerX (164968)
    Sure it's got the name Napster, but Napster died a long time ago. It's never going to come back. The people that own it now don't realize that Napster wasn't popular because of it's name, but because it was FREE. Nobody is going to want to join Napster and have to pay for it. Apple's iTunes was only popular when it first came out. It was a big hype, and it's died off tremendously. There's no way that Napster will ever be as popular as iTunes because it doesn't have the following like Apple did with the Mac

    • I would pay for Napster. I wanted to pay for Napster. The RIAA killed Napster.

      This is NOT Napster.
    • Re:It's not Napster. (Score:2, Interesting)

      by MikeMo (521697)
      iTunes did not die out. It is exceeding all expectations. They recently announced 10 million downloads in 4 months http://pub143.ezboard.com/fthemagazinenfafrm11.sho wMessage?topicID=809.topic. That's extraordinary, any way you measure it. Sure, it's less than the *really* incredible rates they started with, but it is still far in excess of all the other sites combined.
    • Died off? (Score:3, Informative)

      by SuperKendall (25149) *
      It did have an initial surge, but has been averaging about 500k songs a week. Any guess how much OTHER music services are selling a week?

      I have to think that anything actually making money, and lots of it, for the owner is pretty far from being "dead".
      • If you had read what I said, you would have realized that I said it 'died off' which means that it slowed down from its trememdous inital selling. I never said it was 'dead'. Often times markets start to die off but it doesn't mean that they are going to die. It just means they slowed down. I didn't slam Apple's service, in fact I used it to point out that the new Napster is never going to survive. I don't understand why everyone is so defensive about Apple.
  • It's been gone since what, July of 2000? 3 years is one long nap...
  • Animations (Score:3, Informative)

    by Lizard_King (149713) on Thursday October 09, 2003 @06:20PM (#7177045) Journal
    Check out the Napster Animations [napster.com]. They're pretty funny =)
    • Yup. I actually laughed from the cat getting the booty in the head. At least they don't take themselves too seriously.

      • >At least they don't take themselves too seriously.

        You do realise that those animations were designed by a team of 40-something advertising cuntrags sporting expensive suits and stupid pony-tails, right?

        On the other hand, they're all pretty fly, for a white guy.

        • Doesn't matter who designed them. They amused me. Not nearly enough to ever remotely consider actually attempt to possible buy anything from them; but a good distraction for a few minutes nonetheless.

          • > Doesn't matter who designed them. They amused me.

            Wow, that sure was some tasty fruit. Where did you get it from? A serpent, you say? Well, never mind; all that matters is that I enjoyed it.

  • "The service is currently only available to Apple Macintosh users, who represent 3 percent of the world's PC users"
    Their tech section should be headed with "Reuters beacuse a Mac is a PC too"
    • PC = Personal Computer
  • by poot_rootbeer (188613) on Thursday October 09, 2003 @06:30PM (#7177132)
    will Napster regain its place as the premiere music distribution service?

    No.

    Any more brain-busters?
  • by cmh7r (128304) on Thursday October 09, 2003 @06:36PM (#7177165)
    I've been a happy subscriber to pressplay for the last several months and have mixed feelings about it changing its name to napster due to the obviously negative impression that many (eg. company IT people) have of that name.

    Nonetheless, its a great service for the most part:
    1. I can download all the music I want for one flat fee of 10 bucks a month. I can only play it on the computer I downloaded it to, but thats the only computer (at home) I listen to music on.
    2. I can stream music at work... this means I can go group an artist or genre or group of songs into a playlist and have it streamed to my while I work. I can also listen to their radio stations.
    3. Purchasing music - .99 is not that bad considering that you pay 15 bucks for a cd on which you like 4 songs. Plus, you can rip the cd that you burn those songs to to mp3 and use on any device you want. That said, I haven't bought that much music from them.

    Downsides:
    1. Music selection - lots of good music, but some artists that I like are missing.
    2. Pay - its taken me a bit of time to get used to the idea of paying something for music (albeit just 10 bucks a month)

    Alot of posts here have said that this is some phoney service thats doomed to fail - a wannabe iTunes. I think that many more features are available than with iTunes and I urge you to give it a shot... even just the free trial if its available when they startup.

  • more wma crap (Score:3, Insightful)

    by asv108 (141455) * <alex@phatauNETBSDdio.org minus bsd> on Thursday October 09, 2003 @06:39PM (#7177190) Homepage Journal
    Why must these PC music services insist on using WMA? WMA is not even compatible with the most popular portable player, the ipod. Not that AAC with DRM is much better, but at least the audio container is a standard format.

    On a similar note why design a site that is platform specific? There is simply no reason why a music delivery website (thats what all these services are anyway) needs to be designed for a particular platform. I guess the current excuse is media player integration or DRM format capabilities.

    That just leads to the question why use DRM? I realize licensing negotiation in the main reason why, but people who request DRM don't understand the nature of propagation on P2P networks. Once a file is seeded from one source, that is it! The cat is out of the bag. DRM is simply ineffective at prohibiting sharing of files on P2P networks and as seen from the many copy protected CD's, its like putting a big flashing sign on the packaging saying "Crack Me, Trade Me, Please!"

  • Anyway, forget it if you're outside the US (written in their Terms and Conditions). And 0.99$ is way overpriced (specially compared to 0.00). I really wish some big name company would have the guts to start a 0.10c service for non-DRM downloads, available worldwide, and see how it goes.
    • I really wish some big name company would have the guts to start a 0.10c service for non-DRM downloads, available worldwide, and see how it goes.

      It probably wouldn't go very well at all. Your company could have the best intentions in the world, but good luck getting record execs let songs go for that price or not have DRM on there. That's $1.40 and album, and the company running the service will have to take a cut of the money to stay profitable. Record execs are looking at digital music as a way to incr
  • by overbyj (696078) on Thursday October 09, 2003 @06:41PM (#7177210)
    After reading this story, I thought I would go check out BuyMusic.com and see if anything has changed. Low and behold on the front page is a banner advertising the Metallica album. Funny that they were one of the most vocal bands against P2P and Napster in particular.

    I find it quite ironic that they are now giving in and have St. Anger available on BuyMusic.com (nevermind that the album completely blows but that discussion is for another day). I wonder if they will be on the Napster? Since both sites use the draconian DRM so well implemented in WMA, this should make them happy. Now that can sell a few copies of songs off that crappy album and increase their profits from $10 gazillion to $10 gazillion plus a few bucks.
  • um (Score:2, Funny)

    by g0at (135364)
    Additionally, the man behind the magic, Shawn Fanning, receives a thoughtful write up.

    Um... Fanning is not mentioned at all in the linked article. Am I missing something, or was the submitter so pressed for time that he merely guessed about the content of the story?

    Or maybe it was an attempt to let the /. editors call his bluff (yeah, sure...)

    -ben
    • by grue23 (158136)
      it's just the next step of /. mania. first we got posters who haven't read the links. now we have SUBMITTERS who aren't reading them.
  • by CaptRespect (586610) on Thursday October 09, 2003 @06:57PM (#7177359)
    If you are thinking of signing up make sure you read the terms and conditions first. It limits what you can do with the songs quite a bit. Some highlights are:

    --You may burn each Purchased Track to a CD up to five times as part of any particular playlist of songs. A "playlist" is a discrete group of Purchased Tracks that are arranged together in a particular order. Once you have burned a Purchased Track to a CD, you agree not to copy, distribute, or transfer the track from that CD to any other media or device. --

    and
    ---If you are using the version of the Service that is accessible from Microsoft Corporation's Windows Media Player 9 Series, you will only be able to burn or transfer Purchased Tracks using the Windows Media Player. In addition, if you are using the version of the Service that runs in Microsoft Corporation's Windows XP Media Center Edition 2004, certain features that are available in the Service will not be available in the "distance viewing" experience. --

    also --You may copy each Download to up to two additional personal computers that you own (i.e. a total of 3 copies). You may not share Downloads with anyone else. Napster automatically renews your rights to all of your Downloads at the beginning of each Subscription Month (as defined below) so long as your subscription remains current. This means that in order to play any Download after the end of a Subscription Month, you must log on to the Service so that Napster can renew your rights for those Tracks. The Client will count the number of times that you play a Download, including while you are offline, for royalty accounting and analysis purposes. --

    I guess that's what all that Digial Right's Management stuff is in WiMP 9.

    Anyone know what "distance viewing" is?
  • Shawn Fanning (Score:5, Interesting)

    by nate nice (672391) on Thursday October 09, 2003 @07:02PM (#7177426) Journal
    Shawn Fanning is an idiot. This is not a troll. He releases a PTP system that is so inherently unthought out and stupidly illegal and try to make a go of it. He wrote a program in VB that was what it was because he couldn't implement anything more complex. Sure, some of the beauty of Napster was its simplicity. But this is also the reason we are in a jam with PTP systems like we are today. Without Napster we would not have the RIAA court cases. We would have Gnutella systems, Bit Torrent etc free from lawyers and everyone would be happy.

    Napster was a lowest common denominator PTP system. It stole MP3's. Many people thought of simple systems like this that the masses could use but most knew better than to damage PTP credibility before this. Writing a Napster program in VB would take a few days at best. Not that his idea wasn't what counts, it is and simple is usually better. But in his case there was no way around it. Napster was made to steal music. At least with Hotline and similar technologies you could say it had other purposes and in some cases make other purposes for it.

    Napster has caused so many problems with legit PTP systems. My problem with it was it was so flagrant. It was a dumb mans PTP system and it brought attention to other areas that otherwise didn't want it.

    Now, I probably sound like I am hating on Napster because now it's harder for me to steal things. Well, it's not harder for to steal things so you can rule that out. But, I know systems are being monitored closely now and the general public knows what a PTP system is, well sort of. I download some music I don't own. I use free software so I don't need to pirate that. But now I can get a huge fine if I D/L a song from the wrong person. I blame Napster for this. Not for me D/Ling things, but for being so stupid, flagrant and blatantly illegal about it they fucked it up for everyone.
    • It stole MP3's.

      Napster didn't steal MP3s. People steal MP3s.
    • He releases a PTP system that is so inherently unthought out and stupidly illegal and try to make a go of it.

      He released a (kinda) distributed P2P system that worked in ways no system before it did. It was the first of its kind. He made mistakes, but there wasn't really a roadmap of successful systems to emulate. He was just a college kid trying to make something neat.

      At first he didn't worry about "trying to make a go of it," that came later, after the initial popularity and with many people around

  • "I'm pretty wary of the new Napster, as the only thing it seems to share with its predecessor is the name."

    If anybody has been paying attention to their marketing attempts...pretty much the only thing they've been pushing is the brand recognition. I hope they realize that once they roll this out....and they hook a few people....that the brand will be trashed once people realize the service is:

    A. Nothing like it used to be.
    B.Sucks donkey balls compared to similar services *cough*iTunes*cough*.

  • All I want to know is, what is the quality level of the recordings offered by these new pay download services? I used EMusic's $10/month service for a while and quit mainly because many of their MP3s were poorly encoded at low bit rates. Many people just can't tell the difference or don't care, but for me high fidelity is important.
  • Choose a flavor. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by methangel (191461) on Thursday October 09, 2003 @07:29PM (#7177813)
    I don't understand what all of this hullaballoo about "legal" music vending methods is.

    I mean, it is nice that we can now download music at the behest of our checking (or credit card) accounts. On the other hand, the majority of consumers are still in the mindset of "try before you buy." For ten bucks an album, I want some damn liner notes. Do any of these services provide them online? I don't think they do.

    I strongly feel that 10.00 for a bunch of digital bytes, and without any liner notes is an astrociously high price. The company's only real expense for the distribution is the bandwidth. They should adjust the prices accordingly. Now, I do understand that the labels get a cut of the proceeds, I really think they need to revise how big of a cut they get for something that is not physical...especially if they want to be on top of the game.

    Again, I know I am kind of ranting here, but I think that all of these music-service startups is like a bad dream. It reminds me of the "DotCom" bubble in the sense that only the services that provide THE BEST experience will survive. Read: Apple.

    Napster's old reputation precedes its new offering. So, with that kind of stigma, most people that want to legally get music probably won't want to be associated with a name that has had a bad reputation in the past.
  • The posting on this thread says "Additionally, the man behind the magic, Shawn Fanning, receives a thoughtful write up."

    I read the article pointed to in that text, and Shawn Fanning isn't mentioned at all. What gives?
  • by BlackBolt (595616) on Thursday October 09, 2003 @11:37PM (#7179899) Homepage Journal
    In my experience, MOST if not ALL of the young people I know DON'T KNOW WHAT THE HELL NAPSTER IS! I'm not kidding. It was big 5 years ago, but Kazzaa is the only name the teenyboppers know now.

    Napster has virtually NO brand name value with the demographic that counts, kids aged 15-25.

    As an aside, the same kids knew Nirvana, but had no idea who Alice In Chains or Soundgarten were, and these were headbanging Korn/Limp Bizkit dudes. Sad... Actually, they didn't know who the President of the USA was, or the Prime Minister of Canada, so take heart, the cuts in education are working wonders.

  • THAT would explain why I saw a Mini painted up with Napster logos driving down Broadway in New York City yesterday!

    I was looking at Broadway and 50th Street yesterday afternoon, and saw a "Napstermobile" driving down the road. I was thinking, "Who the heck bought a new car and painted it for a dead product?".

    Thought someone might find that interesting...

Pause for storage relocation.

Working...