MP3 Quickies On The Edge Of Forever 97
bbt wrote in to tell us about
Gnute,
Rolls wrote in to tell us about the Tabloids' Web site promoting Napster mischief, and
Jeckle shared the Washington Post article about the Canadian band, Kittie, using the web to propagate their music. I love Kittie.
Oscarfish wrote in about a fantastic "Wall Street Journal article at ZDNet reporting that Napster executives are in meetings with record label executives.
This here is a good one. KingOfBongo told us about the Economist article that suggests "...the music industry could easily build a closed commercial news distribution service superior to rogue freeware Napster."
Re:Fawking RIAA ! (Score:1)
Gnutella can use HTTP to transfer files. So the Gnute service simply provides you with URLs formed to point to the users' static IPs.
---
Amen! (Score:2)
(1) Freeware music distribution programs like Gnutella, but that can DL Napster file. These programs should not share file to Napster, just search Napster for files to DL.
(2) More agressive free music distribution systems for non-industry bands. Example: You sing up to recieve an mp3 from some random band in your email every day. the email would contain various information about the band (like how to order their CDs and/or how to support them).
(3) Add an HTML option to mp3 tags, i.e. the players would have a little button whhich the user could push to launch a web page. This web page would contain information about the artist, song lyrics, begging for people to give the artist money, and advertising (if the artist would want to sell advertising in their songs).
Anyway, the point is we just need to make it easy for people to abandon the industry and go directly to the artist.
Re:Commercial Napster (Score:1)
stealing music is stealing music (oh dont even fucking bother... its not REALLY stealing.. its 'unauthorized distribution of copyrighted intellectual property'). true, the industry probably needs to exploit this new frontier and not outlaw it and fuck themselves over... but just plain old copyright infringement isnt any sort of solution.
so yeah, the industry is fucking up... but oh well, its not my loss, but that doesnt make pirated mp3's 'ok'.
Re:First RIAA vs. Napster, now RIAA & Napster? (Score:1)
Re:Napster will SELL-OUT just like mp3.com (Score:1)
ah but... (Score:1)
It seems like it would cause too many problems... likely why it isn't already widely used (at least with my ISP there are not alt.mp3.* channels).
-rt-
Re:ah but... (Score:2)
Re:Commercial Napster (Score:1)
Re:Napster @ fault ? - not (Score:1)
Re:Napster will SELL-OUT just like mp3.com (Score:1)
It seems that the major labels have finally stumbled upon a clue. Instead of spending money to litigate, which doesn't generate profits - just bad press, they are pursuing the advantages of the new medium. This is to be applauded. It means better quality MP3s(or whatever) and it means that the artist continues to get paid.
What we have now is piracy on the high seas, and noone really benefits from that kind of environment. It cannot sustain itself. There is no question that the paradigm has shifted, and the conventional distribution model is no longer the only game in town. The Labels are going to lose some control over distibution, and that is good.
But what is happening now cannot continue, or we will find that the noise will grow independent of the signal. That would be bad for us, but worse for artists. Ask any college band how hard it is to get noticed now. Imagine what happens when they are competing against the entirity of the internet. For all of thier bad behavior, the labels act as a reasonable filter and keep the noise down and make it easier to find recordings of the music that matters to you.
I agree that there are many lowlifes in the record industry. It's important to recognize that those lowlifes have nothing on an artist until said artist signs on the line. The artist is complicit in the whole arrangement and as much to blame as the labels for the culture that pervades the music industry.
When you're in bed with the Devil, the Devil is not sleeping alone.
I think those that fail to realize this have an unrealistic expectation of fairness in a world that is inherently unfair. It's just as impossible to legislate good sense on the part of the artist as it would be for the labels to contain the MP3 Djinn.
Toodles,
Nephs
Re:Commercial Napster (Score:1)
Read some of the articles here. [fsf.org]
There will always be criminals, and this does not apply to people who just want to steal something to get a free ride, but rather to the people who believe what's right about copyright.
It's a WIN if Napster sells out (Score:2)
The result? The recording industry lost all their lawsuits to prevent people from playing songs on the air, and got small royalties.
So Napster will end up paying a token fee to the record companies, and just like cassette-taping off the radio helped artists in the past, mp3s will continue to help artists in the future.
It's a win. As long as Napster gets to carry all the music and makes enough profit to stay in business, it's an effing win.
--
Re:Too little too late? (Score:1)
P.S. Why do cassette tapes cost less than CD's? They cost more to manufacture!
Re:Too little too late? (Score:2)
What is really needed is something half way between Napster and the established music industry.
There was actually a really interesting thread [slashdot.org] on /. a few days ago, it never made it to the front page and now has about 15 comments...
It is about an article by Courtney Love [salon.com] (worth reading) on Salon . From what she says it sounds like pretty much anything would be better than the current Music Biz...
Re:Inelastic demand, monopolistic competition (Score:1)
Like all the other napster fans you're obsessed with having whatever music you want without having to pay for it. Not having music simply doesn't seem to be a choice primarily, I think, because of the sense of entitlement people seem to have. Recorded music seems to be a right, not a privilege.
What's more shocking is that people are so up in arms about CDs being too expensive but nobody seems to give a damn about going to the doctor being too expensive; I guess it's the naivete of youth.
Fugazi on MP3s (Score:2)
1) With the rise of MP3 sharing programs like Napster and Gnutella, labels and bands are worried about losing control of their music. Metallica and Dr Dre are the two most prominent critics. Others, like Limp Bizkit and Chuck D are very much in favor of Napster and its ilk. I was wondering how the members of Fugazi felt about the rise of MP3 music. Do you support the trading of songs? Any reservations about it?
1.re: napster, MP3's etc. ---we don't have any real strong feelings about it mainly because we are kind of low tech - as far as i'm concerned, i'm glad people have access to the music. to me its like radio freed from the dictatorship of the programmers - as far as trading files, to us its just like trading tapes - as long as people aren't trying to profit off it its totally cool with us.
Having read numerous articles on the subject, I see repeated that many bands and labels claim that CDs cost $16 because running a record label is very expensive. I believe Lars Ulrich of Metallica stated, "For every one successful band, you have nine that flop and cost the record company a lot of money." Yet bands like Fugazi and the Dischord label can sell CDs for less than $10, and are apparently very successful. What makes Dischord able to sell a Fugazi CD so inexpensively, when I have to shell out $16 for the latest pop album? Are the labels lying to conceal a huge profit-making machine, or are the dynamics different between a small indie label and a larger corporate one.
majors are into profit maximization - that is not our primary concern. we want to make our music accessible to as many people as possible, thus the low price. making a CD costs about $2 so you can do the math to figure out the degree to which the majors are gouging people to pay off all their bloated CEOs, promotion budgets, and inflated production costs.
Re:Trojan horses (Score:2)
Re:A better napster than napster (Score:1)
(for the record, I have 2 real goldsmith cds and plan to buy 3 more. That's all I plan do as a student. I don't care whatever justification napster users have come up with, nobody can afford a some what complete goldsmith collection!)
CY
vvvvvvv../|__/|
...I../O,O....|
...I./
..J|/^.^.^ \..|.._//|
...|^.^.^.^.|W|./oo.|
Re:Inelastic demand, monopolistic competition (Score:2)
You've mistaken me for someone else. I don't have gigabytes of MP3s that I've hoarded from around the world. I've got maybe 10 or 20, about half of which I intend to delete because I don't like them.
I only download MP3's of songs I'm genuinely interested in purchasing, provided I like them, or for which I've been unable to find the physical media for. For instance, I've recently developed a taste for Devo, and (if I can find them in stores these days), I'll likely be purchasing their work. On top of that, I have several tracks off of the NIN/David Bowie collaboration "The Odd Couple" which I haven't been able to find in stores ANYWHERE. (Where can I get all of the remixes of "I'm Afraid of Americans"? I don't like the MP3s -- I want the CD, but I can't have it becuase nobody is willing to sell it to me because it's not popular enough to carry the overblown price tag they want to put on it.)
More to the point, though, I was NOT trying to justify copyright infringement. Rather, I was trying to point out why things are the way they are (CDs are too expensive and choice is unduly restricted due to an overreaching copyright monopoly and a naturally inflexible demand).
If copyright worked the way it's supposed to work, (namely, limited copyright term) I should be able to purchase Devo CDs from the late 70s from anybody that cares to press them. But, due to the huge term assigned to copyright these days, even my great-grandchildren may not be able to do so. They'll have to rely on whichever company which owns the rights to Devo's music and their own desires for pressing albums. And in the meantime, I'll have to pay the same retail price for Devo albums today that I'd pay for current artists, because that's the way monopolistic pricing works. There's "one price", and if demand is zero at that price, no units ship.
I think a big step forward would be to add an "untended works" clause to copyright, which would put any work which is not actively being commercially exploited for a certain period of time into the public domain. That would make the classic gaming community happy, as well as purveyors of less-than-mainstream works, as many of these works that are currently "lost" due to copyright issues would then fall into the public domain.
Still, the term on copyright is far too long. It should be no longer than about 20 years, tops. Long copyrights deter advancement of the art, and encourage corporate recycling.
Bringing up health-care in a forum that's discussing copyright is a non-sequitor. I personally have health insurance, and I'm young and healthy. So, I naturally don't need to worry as much. Nonetheless, this isn't the discussion for it.
--Joe--
Word Association (Score:1)
I'd like to take this opportunity to point out the similarities between the industry associations and the Nazis. They both have the law on their side, mostly because they induced the implementation of the law, as opposed to any real correctness in the law. They both grant special places to certain "blessed" groups of people (Nazis chose Aryans, {MP,RI}AA chooses individuals with strong ignorant consumerish traits). They both seek to destroy anyone else (Nazis by extermination, AAs by making everyone a "good consumer").
Ok, maybe on it's own merits, it's not fair to call the MPAA and the RIAA Nazis. On the other hand, they're calling a lot of people theives who haven't (as defined by law and court ruling) stolen anything.
Audio Bomb and the lowest common denominator (Score:2)
gnute.com? confused (Score:1)
what is that page? an http-to-gnutella portal? half the links dont do anything useful, so its mostly indecipherable to me.
i think the real fun is in a somewhat different direction... build a distributed database like napster or gnutella, but with all the scaling issues fixed, automatic mirroring and indexing... and then start replacing http as a transport for content that doesnt change (not just static, but also never needs to be updated). replace everything from the latest kernel tarball to the gifs that make up the window dressing with queries that go to a local mirror, and maybe automatically version and mirror the rest... would certainly help avoid the "slashdot effect".
...but now im offtopic and in my own unimplemented pipe-dream.
Can Napster sue Media Enforcer or NetPD? (Score:2)
Media inforcer finds the IP address of the users on Napster, based on the name of the files they are sharing. I don't know if NetPD does that or just reports the Napster username.
--
Re:Napster will SELL-OUT just like mp3.com (Score:5)
Napster is not publicly traded and does not have stockholders to answer to. If they did, this saga would have ended a long, long time before they had multiple, concurrent lawsuits piling up.
In Microsoft terms, RIAA is not playing "embrace and extend." Apparently you do not understand the meaning of that phrase, which refers to Microsoft's repeated obfuscation of open standards into proprietary ones which work with only Microsoft products. How you got that out of the RIAA situation is beyond me. All the pot in Mexico couldn't help me find a link between the two.
Wireless TCP/IP is an oxymoron, considering that wireless would seem to pertain to an entirely different layer of the OSI model (e.g.: one) than the TCP/IP suite. I'm still struggling to make the connection between TCP/IP radios, "pirate" radio (which, by the way, was basically legalized at the beginning of this year by that same pesky, greedy FCC that you speak so highly of), and government censorship. Again, it ain't happening.
Again with your "anti-trust" rant we see that you have little to no factual knowledge of the subject matter about which you are writing. The Big 5 record labels that are RIAA have existed for half a century without government prodding - and that harkens back to the 50s and 60s when there were literally no indie labels to speak of and they owned every avenue to distribute and publicize music available. If anything, the climate has gotten more competitive over the years, not less. All history aside, I fail to see how cooperating with Napster, RIAA, Napster and RIAA, Napster, RIAA, CuteMX, iMesh, and Scour combined would net them any sort of anti-trust violation. Perhaps you could elaborate more.
I guess what really annoys me about this post is how it got moderated up to 4 (and probably 5) for basically taking a bunch of buzzwords - "embrace and extend", "wireless TCP/IP" - injecting a healthy dose of anti-government sentiment, capitalizing some random and stigmatized words like KILL or FORCED, mixing them up, and praying for the best in terms of currying mod points.
--
Damn. I mismoderated, so I'll just post here (Score:1)
Kid Rock's view on MP3s... (Score:1)
His response? "I'm rich, what do I care?"
Sure hope none of his record company's execs were watching.....
Re:Commercial Napster (Score:1)
The music industry and change (Score:1)
As soon as a good economic model pops up behind the distribution of music (books, movies, etc) the traditional companies that have dominated the realm will still be the big players. They will adapt. Aside from the front line runners (currently the 'bad boys' of the new music world) like mp3.com and Napster, all the other companies entering in the realm are aligning themselves with the traditional music companies and preparing for an all out assault on the market. Expecially in the not-yet-born wireless market.
Check out companies like http://www.mongomusic.com, look at who their investors are. Its pretty damn clear were this industry is going to go. mp3 lockers, subscription services, the empasis on streaming, etc..
Art has never been free, and I don't see career/full-time/whatever artists giving away their music anytime soon. Music outlets are just going to use a subscription model to pump music into your house, car, and that headphone jack that will find its way into the next generation of digital cell phones.
The record companies are pretty much just banks that fund artists. And that is not going to change, just evolve.
Another thing: One of the really great things about music on the Internet and some of the new searching technology is that its going to be alot easier to break new bands. Hence, there will be more music readily available that normally was very 'underground'.. Being that smaller artists don't make crap off record sales until they get to a certain size, I think that this will result in more of an emphasis on live preformance. If anything, this will be the best result for the bands. Bands, with both small and large following, make most of their cash off touring. I hope this translates into more 'alive' local music scenes, more shows, and rave going on every weekend.
Companies like Napster and mp3.com are giving the industry a good kick in the ass right now. Their reaction will move out of the courts and into the market place shortly. They will figure it out. They will learn how to make money in the information age. They are NOT going to go away. . . .
. . . as much as we would like them to.
...
. ""The future masters of technology will have to be lighthearted and
. intelligent. The machine easily masters the grim and the dumb."
Re:The Tabloids & Napster (Score:1)
I'd like to see some supply/demand curves backing up his statement (and yes "simple" ones will suffice). If CD's are selling efficientally at their current price how come there is sooo much surplus?
Its like there are people that buy MS-Office (I've never seen one...) even though it costs 400$ - does that mean its selling at market equilibrium? No - in fact I don't know anyone in my circle that has a legit copy of it. And another question - why is there such a huge black market for pirated copies of MS-Office and MP3's? Because their too expensive for some people.
Skuld.
People doing it right... (Score:2)
So I'd like to throw a link out to the people at emusic [emusic.com] who do get it. Music by well known artists, at a reasonable price, in the lovely non-proprietary mp3 format. These guys rock and deserve our support. Come on Slashdotters, put your money where your mouth is!
Funny bits of trymedia's "user agreement" (Score:2)
System Integrity
You may not take any action which imposes an unreasonable or disporportionately large load on the Site or Trymedia Systems' infrastructure.
Um, does that mean slashdotting is a no-no?:}
The community can bite this one in the ass. (Score:1)
Re:The Tabloids & Napster (Score:1)
And another thing - did anyone notice during the 80's that when CD's came out they were more expensive then tapes? Its funny - count the number of moving parts in a tape - they have to cost more to manufacture then a CD. I mean I can make a CD at home for as low as .75$ - you'd think an industrial plant could make them for cheaper (I read in Popular Mechanics a while back that they cost less then .05$ per disk actually).
Simple economic theory teaches me that this is a scam.
Skuld.
Moderate up "People doing it right..." (Score:1)
I can't be the only
(Hopefully tha means the _actual_ artists, and doesn't include a bunch of middlemen).
Secure music delivery.. attempt #3 (Score:1)
Yes Real Networks sued but that changes nothing. The method is now public. It should be a minnor effort for a cracker to do it again.
Enter Napster. Belive it or not.. attempt number 2. Before it even got off the ground someone figured out how the stream worked and made a clone.
The process isn't that hard. Just set up a BSD box and have it record everything that passes between the Windows box and the network.
(Yeah I know Linux can do the job but I've become accustum to BSD boxes as firewalls.. they do the job so well.. and this is just a small modification to a firewall).
With some hacking you can not only replicate the client but the server as well.
All just by observing the data stream.
And now you have a Napster nockoff...
What next...
Well the music industry seems to think they can do it.
Let me point out that Real Networks and Napster did this with a larg base of knowladge behind them. They knew the history of streaming media. CU-SeeMe... Ztalk and all the wonderful Unix radio and voice IP clients. Most open sourced.
They didn't work in the dark...
And they couldn't come up with anything...
Now the music industry thinks they can pull this off. Not knowing a thing about all the protocals that came before. Not knowing a thing about what it took to crack thies protocals.
Entirely in the dark. Compleatly ignorent.
They might pull it off.
But I sereously doupt it...
Cracking this.. I doupt it would even be a challange for a cryptophile...
Re:Napster @ fault ? - not (Score:1)
And my CDripper outputs to
stopnapster.com has wrong WHOIS info (Score:3)
Michael Robertson (510) 428-9866
michael@thetabloids.com [mailto]
Don't forget to tell his wife Tracy hello when you call.
Re:Inelastic demand, monopolistic competition (Score:1)
What you fail to address, though, is the part of the napster debate I'm mystified by: where is it written that you have to have freakin' recorded music AT ALL? If you don't like the game the record companies are playing, don't play it at all. Why isn't "I gave up on music because the music industry sucks" considered to be a legitimate choice in this debate? It seems to be "the music industry sucks, therefore I'll steal from them" is the
No one is arguing with your analysis of the music biz or the copyright situation; my argument is with the idea that stealing is a valid alternative but not participating in the music industry somehow seems to not be, primarily due to the sense of entitlement that people have. You don't need music any more than you need beer.
Bringing up healthcare is totally legitimate; I'm mentioning it because the zealousness of MP3 advocates seems entirely misplaced; put your energy into a cause that has real benefit, not one that only serves your selfish desires.
Re:LINUX users should here about OpenBSD!!! (Score:1)
Another band supporting free distribution... (Score:1)
All I know (Score:2)
Is that Gnute better be based out of some country that the RIAA can't even pronounce, let alone have heard of, or the RIAA isn't even going to bother with police and lawyers this time. They'll nuke it from orbit - only way to be sure. But it seems like it might be located in California. Even better! A RIAA executive with a chainsaw can go over there in person.
On a technical level, the site is very interesting, and very powerful. It uses Gnutella to transfer the underlying files, and has very few graphics. What does this mean? You could practically run this site on an old amiga with a 28.8 link. All it has to do is feed it's queries to Gnutella - it only delivers the front page and formats the search page.
Too little too late? (Score:5)
Who was the research genius who thought up this brilliant earth shaking concept? Of COURSE the music industry could embrace digital distribution of their content, and because they're fuelled by so much capital, they could probably put together a really slick and well marketed system. People would flock to it.
But they haven't. They've been content with their high priced markups on CDs, and until now haven't really been pushed to do anything about that. Sure, distro channels like Napster encourage illegal distribution of copyrighted material, but legalities aside... I'm just glad it's giving the music industry a sufficient kick in the bloated backside to compel them to do something substantial in the way of innovation.
It will be interesting to see how this pans out. I'll be keeping track of the news while listening to my MP3 collection with XMMS. :^P
Re:Too little too late? (Score:1)
I need more coffee. And some punctuation.
Commercial Napster (Score:2)
Personally, I think that a scheme where one pays x dollars to download y songs is better. With a time limit, one month might have more releases you like than the next, so you'd waste money on months you hardly used the service. I don't think it would work on a per song basis, because then they'd just charge some inflated rate just like they do now. (Remember when they said CDs would cost less after they had been around for a few years?)
First RIAA vs. Napster, now RIAA & Napster? (Score:2)
Finally. Instead of suing, they're trying to work out a reasonable solution (or so it seems). This should be interesting.
This here is a good one. KingOfBongo told us about the Economist article that suggests "...the music industry could easily build a closed commercial news distribution service superior to rogue freeware Napster."
A closed commercial news distribution service? Anyway, a "legal" version of Napster and of distributing MP3s would be great, but since the software would now be under the control of the RIAA et al. instead of Napster, I see a potential for price gouging or other similar abuses. For example, "Napster 2 is now out in stores! Works just like the original Napster, but uses your credit card to ensure legality! Only $59.99!" But who knows, maybe that won't happen. Time will tell...
=================================
Napster cutting a deal? (Score:1)
<p>Besides, the humorous part about Napster is that most music isn't shared by it - it is from college universities and mp3 servers in offices.
The hardest part about mp3's is not in finding music, it's in finding a particular song. If it isn't popular (ie, the 18-25 group) you won't find it, unless it's techno.
The opposing viewpoint (Score:1)
mp3.com (Score:1)
Actually emusic, and mp3.com were in talks for a while as well. I believe mp3.com came up with some kind of deal.
kicking some CAD is a good thing [cadfu.com]
Re:Napster will SELL-OUT just like mp3.com (Score:1)
I don't see how Napster offers musicians anything. If I want to distribute my music for free, I don't need Napster or any other _distributed_ distribution system. I can convert my music to mp3 and put it on my web site. Fans can download freely from here, so only need distribute links rather than files among themselves. The only time when a _distributed_ distribution system is needed is when someone is trying to suppress the distribution. I.e. when I choose not to distribute my music for free.
To get out of indentured slavery all that's is needed is a way to pay the rent, studio, manager etc without charging for music - Napster does not offer this.
The Tabloids & Napster (Score:3)
First off -- uh, is it just me, or are these people trying to parrot the Major Label line so they can get signed? I mean, really -- how many of us have downloaded anything by The Tabloids. Wait, don't answer that -- how many of us have HEARD of the Tabloids. Something tells me that Tabloid-piracy isn't high up on the list of napster-users. Hell, I got bored, so I fired up Napster and did a search for "tabloids". I found two tracks. One a Dennis Miller rant, the other a Bob Rivers novelty song. Whee, they've got a lot to worry about.
Two, check out the faqs... one of them, I'll take the liberty of posting here so you don't have to go and find it:
>>>>
CD prices are too high and I don't want to pay for songs that are crappy.
Simple economic theory will tell you that CD prices are not too high because people continue to buy them at that price. The only reason that CD prices are as high as they are is that that is what the market will bear. Maybe CD prices are, in fact, too high for you personally. Sure, that sucks. But the price of a Porsche is too high for lots of people, too and even though they'd like to have one, they can't just go and take one off the showroom floor. Perhaps the argument would be effective if there were no other ways for people to listen to music, but there are. There is the radio, there are stores that sell used CDs, there are web sites that auction used CDs and legitimtate sites that allow you to download individual songs for about a buck.
>>>>
OK, read the bit about used CDs again. Um, really -- when you get down to it, isn't it MUCH worse to buy a used CD than to download an album from Napster? In both instances the labels^wartists don't get jack, but with the used CD, not only do you just get the music, you get it in CD Quality AND you get the packaging/album art. Also, with Napster, there's a CHANCE that the downloader will go and actually BUY the album (apparently this happens less often than you'd think, according to the site, though, weird -- everyone _I_ know does buy the records, if anything, to free up HD space -- but I know that you CAN'T go by anecdote when proving things, so just leave that as an aside, eh?) -- but why would anyone later buy the CD NEW if they already have it USED? Doesn't especially seem well thought out, does it?
Thirdly, isn't that cute, they seem to think that artists actually get money from making and selling records! Isn't that adorable?! I'm not going to reiterate the whole argument here, because most of you have already heard it, but if you haven't, check out "The Trouble With Music" by Steve "Record Producin' Guy Who Had a Wesley Willis Song Written About Him" Albini [interstate40.com.au] (BTW, the "I hate Christians" shirt the intro mentions that Negativland sells are actually "Christianity Is Stupid" shirts after the Negativland song from "Escape From Noise" -- it's not part of the original article), or that one Courtney Love thing that was adapted pretty much wholesale from Albini's rant -- Love's version can be found at Salon.com -- just poke around a bit if you haven't read it already.
Anyway, sure, think Napster's Satan or whatever, but for christ's sake, is it too much to ask for people to THINK THEIR ARGUMENTS THROUGH FIRST?! AT LEAST A LITTLE BIT?
---
Re:Audio Bomb and the lowest common denominator (Score:1)
But that removes the fun of playing mp3s while they're still downloading, which works great if you have a high bandwidth connection. Just gotta make sure the transfer goes faster than the bitrate.
Fawking RIAA ! (Score:1)
This month, MP3.com Inc., a San Diego Internet site, reached an out-of-court settlement with two big record labels over a separate copyright suit. MP3.com agreed to pay 1.5 cents each time a user stores a song using MP3.com's service, as well as a third of a cent each time the song is listened to from the company's Web site.
Unbelievable. I've been watching the mp3.com debate for a year now. Not only did they have to pay 100 million to do this, but now they have to pay money for each stream! (And this is just for the 2 out of 5 recording companies.)
Did anyone try out Gnute.com? What a great idea! (it bombed out on my first download try, but it's probably being /.'d, or simply the person I downloaded from went offline.) Gnute.com simply hooks up a dynamic web page allowing you to practically run their gnutella software. You simply get their searches, their stats, etc pasted up to your web page. Nice.
This is great, because no matter how good Gnutella is, it just ain't going to get all the 12 year old retards on Napster to try it out, unless it gets the point & click ease of a web site. Not only that, but now even AOL users can use something this simple! Now that's a lot of sheep without a shepard!
There is one problem though! If everyone used Gnute.com instead, then there would be no files to download!
I'm curious if the download part of Gnute.com is still peer2peer/dchp, or if it's from downloadee to gnute.com to me. I'm sure it's not the latter, since that would kill gnute.com's bandwidth.
I was a little disappointed about the Tabloid's site called: stopnapster.com. I had hoped it was a joke, but they brought up too many good points for it to be a joke. I certainly hope that none of their ideas catch on (Like mp3 bombs, trojans, etc) Hopefully people would listen to what they download, and then delete it if it had anti-piracy speakers talking in it!
asdf (Score:1)
Re:Napster cutting a deal? (Score:2)
I've found some weird and obscure shit on Napster. I've tried to fill scratched songs from my Cd's before, and sometimes I'd have to try a few days in a row, but did end up finding it.
You're obviously just not a user of Napster. Really. It's numbers! CDDB.com lists about 500,000 albums with 400 new ones a day. EVERYONE in the world with EVERY album in the world just isn't on Napster. Let alone the same holy hour that you got on that one time. What's wrong, couldn't you find that Hanson Bootleg song that they played at your birthday? Why am I even arguing with someone that mentions 18-25 group as a stereotype. Besides 14-21 is a much more accurate range. Let alone argue with Signal 11. Sigh, I knew I shouldn't have gone in to work today.
Oh, and one last thing, most of the music is held by individual users, not mp3 servers, not universities, and not napster (as you seemed to mention). The average user has 100 - 150 songs. And they make up the bulk of all Napster listings. No shit! Another power-in-numbers thing.
Rader
Re:Tabloid's site (Score:1)
Re:Napster will SELL-OUT just like mp3.com (Score:2)
They are not publicly traded but they do have stockfolders to answer to. Napster is a privately held company, with private stock holders (several in fact), not the least of which is a large VC (Hummer Winblad) that is Chaired by a lawyer that used to work for the record industry. Does this mean Napster will settle with the RIAA? Possibly, given that Napster is a business, it has no revenue model presently and its shareholders, the people that pay Napsters bills are going to demand, if they havent already that Napster start making some money - so they can get a return on their investment. Now, given that Napsters largest investor is a VC with connections to the record industry it stands to reason that Napster will try to work out some amicable arrangement with the labels (RIAA). Its anyones guess if it will happen. mp3.com settled for a very similiar reason: Its good for business.
So, make no mistake, Napster is a business first and last. Its not an open source project. Its not a revolution. Its a business. NApsters marketing people can say what they want. They can claim they are a revolution. They can say they are here to save the world, or whatever they want you to hear. But ultimately at the end of the day, they have to pay their employees and answer to their shareholders just like any other business.
They have no revenue stream presently so they are absolutely at the mercy of their investors (also refered to as stock holders... thats what investors buy, stock in a privately held company) or they won't get anymore money from those investors. They have to do something, settle, create a new model or sometthing to make money, or they will simply go out of business. Keep in mind that even if Napster wins their lawsuit, they have to change something about their current model because they can't make any money at all doing what they are doing now. No business can survive without revenue.
Again with your "anti-trust" rant we see that you have little to no factual knowledge of the subject matter about which you are writing. The Big 5 record labels that are RIAA have existed for half a century without government prodding - and that harkens back to the 50s and 60s when there were literally no indie labels to speak of and they owned every avenue to distribute and publicize music available. If anything, the climate has gotten more competitive over the years, not less.
Actually, all the major labels were recently found to be engaging in illegal price fixing of CDs. Hardly a competitive climate when your so called competitors agree not to under cut your prices and instead illegally collude to keep prices at an artifically high level. Competition exists in markets without price fixing. The CD market was hardly competitive by anyones measure.
--
Python
Re:Trojan horses (Score:1)
My understanding of Napster (not having used it), is that each user makes a shared directory, and whatever files they place in it are shared with other users, and whatever they download is downloaded into this directory. The important idea being that each user is in control of what material they are currently sharing with others.
I just don't understand how a couple dozen or even hundreds of Napster users (of the 10e6) could undermine the entire system by "flooding" it with Trojan Horses or Bombs? Maybe Freenet, where the file is copied automatically, but in Napster and Gnutella space, the copies happen as a result of users, who nearly always will review the material and delete it if it's bogus.
Did I miss some important part of their Trojan Horse attack that makes it viable??
Re:Napster will SELL-OUT just like mp3.com (Score:1)
Ok, so I repeated myself. But you know, there's this spectrum, and on one side you have Ross Perot,.. I mean one one side you've got ALL MONEY and on the other side you got FOR THE IDEA... and I was just in awe how much they were leaning towards that left hand side. But hey. If Taco Bell feels good about selling Grade E meat...It's all about the Benjamins.
Rader
Re:Word Association (Score:1)
Skuld.
Re:Recording industry cannot compete in the long r (Score:1)
>property". Many laws are not at all enforceable anymore, and most
>people cannot convince themselves that there is any harm in freely
>copying information
Exactly. What the RIAA and MPAA and their various supporter seem to have forgotten and is going to learn the hard way is that most laws can't be enforced if you run around calling people theives and pirates, anymore than the RedNecks in the south could stop the civil rights movement in the south by having the cops sic their attack dogs on the protesters.
I know how to beat the "Napster Bombs." (Score:2)
They propose to take a song, and splice inane garbage into the middle of it.
In devious fashion, I've come up with a plan to foil these would-be saboteurs:
I propose that in the middle of that "Charlton Heston" speech in the middle of my Dr. Dre "Slap Dat Bitch Ho" MP3, we place snippets of Metallica!
Not ONLY does it demoralize those who believe Chuck's fiery rhetoric, it also fools Lars! Imagine, hundreds of Metallica sound clips, hidden in Charlton Heston speeches in Back Street Boys songs. Take that, Lars and crew!
Waiting to be sued,
Ronnie
Limitations of MP3 Distribution (Score:1)
Napster Bomb and Mark Gunderson (Score:1)
The sad part is that all these aretists that are about to lose money Never make any in the first place. A recording contract gives you money that you give right back to the corporation that gave it to you.
Then they sell your music giving you a tiny fraction of the sales that they keep until the original advance is paid back to them.
Musical artists make thier money from touring and selling tshirts, the only people really being hurt by this are the mega corporte superstars (heheh mettalica) and the record companies.
The other side is that most people I know who use the napster end up buying the cd anyway as they cant't find what they really want or some almost complete song has propagated itself through the entire napster system like a virus.
I hope this made some sense. I just woke up..
Guess I'll have to stick to pirating for now (Score:1)
I visited www.stopnapster.com; they suggested three commercial sites trying to fill the market for the sale of online music. Since I agree that artists should be able to make money from the online sale of music, I visited all of them, and "randomly" picked a song that I decided I want to buy online ("Wonderful Life", by "Black", which is a fairly well-known song, and has featured on "greatest hits of the millenium" collections.)
Emusic's search feature told me flat out that they have no music by the artist.
I couldn't even find a search feature at LiquidAudio's web page, although one of their content provider's sites had one (www.virginjamcast.com) - 'cept they also had no songs by Black.
And at Kick.com, the only option available was to exchange personal information for their "music companion" software, which as far as I can tell wants to run my entire musical life, informing me of all the latest events, concerts, etc of my favorite artists, while pushing ad's in my face. For f*ck's sake, I just want to buy a single song, not invite kick.com to become an integral part of my daily life.
So much for the options. Back to Napster, I guess ...
Re:Commercial Napster (Score:1)
streams at 56kpbs would take 5.6 Gbps line. That's a few $100,000/month just in bandwidth.
I don't know how much that much bandwidth costs, but if you're serving 100,000 users and taking in $15 per user per month, that's $1.5 million per month that you're bringing in... I'd HOPE that that's enough money to supply the bandwidth needed... and besides that, 100,000 people are not all going to be logged in simultaneously downloading... You'd probably need 1/5 to 1/10 the bandwidth, if that makes it easier....
But forget about the idea of a $15/month subscription service... you've got radio for free... If you want to actually choose which songs you hear and when you hear them, you need to pay for the priveledge, and $15 isn't really that much. Besides that, if you paid your $15, and listen to 50 bands that month, how does the money get divied out? you could argue that the bands see about that in royalties, but it doesn't factor in any of the costs that the labels paid out in the first place....
Re:Tabloid's site (Score:1)
The privacy statement on your site... (Score:1)
Maybe you should look around for a new privacy statement, or at least delete that paragraph from it, being that you often seem to encourage illegal activities when it comes to Napster...
Re:Listen to what the puff-man sez. (Score:1)
To: Michael Robinson <contact@STOPNAPSTER.COM>
Subject: Suggestion
From: napster@molina.com.br
Date: Sun, 25 Jun 2000 20:26:40 -0300
Hi. Sorry for e-mailing you, but your website www.stopnapster.com is not allowing comments. So if you are not the person responsible for deciding CD prices, please forward this to the relevant people. Thanks.
I have a suggestion. Why instead of trying to stop Napster (what is a pure waste of time, as if Napster is banned, there will appear other distribution systems, and/or tehnologies), why doesn't RIAA simply lower their prices ? The record companies are fatty and can easily reduce their profit margin. This way, they'll sell more.
No one in their right mind would prefer to get a MP3 from the Internet if they could buy a CD for, say, $4.
When CDs were introduced, some years ago, they were more expensive than a tape. The explanation was that by then CD-recording equipment was expensive and hard to find. Now it's much cheaper than producing a tape. But CD prices didn't lower. Artits profit didn't rise too. This means recording companies are evil and getting all the money.
So, just lower CD prices and there'll be no need to stop napster. People will stop using automatically.
What do you think ?
If you need help setting the new prices, and stuff, you are free to contact me at napster@molina.com.br . TIA.
NICE TROLL (Score:1)
Did I say Napster was *publicly* traded, or were your hehmoroids itching this afternoon? Regardless of their not being "public", they still have shareholders who are external to the company, such as the VC's.
Regarding to the comparison of the RIAA and Microsoft in "extending", I think you're just fishing with a microscope. Or, you are a really anal person. The gist of what I was saying was they are both abusing their market position to suppress new business models and competition. I don't care that things have improved since the 40s (wow, that's pretty obvious without even mentioning hollywood red scares..)
Regarding the comment about TCP/IP, I can't believe you wasted so many words on misinterpretation. To paraphrase what I said, I CANNOT WAIT until the "airwaves" (be they WHATEVER they are, dammit) are free. When that happens, just maybe the artists will be free as well. Maybe your tastes in music are completely filled by the bland bullshit served on most corporate radio, but I don't accept what is force-fed to me. I'll hunt that music down, even if the effort of doing so is like a day at the Registry (Department of Vehicles, or MS Regedit, take your pick!)
Thanks for pointing out YOU know there's a difference between a protocol, like TCP/IP, and the transport it rides in on, such as wireless. That's not even moderately on topic, but I guess nothing gets by you clever guy...
And the post was moderated up to 3 AFAIK, but who gives a rats ass? My post was on topic, while yours was Flamebait. Add more fiber to your diet.
Scott
Dailyphat & Surfy (Score:1)
Gnute is not the only web front end to Gnutella. See also
Daily Phat [dailyphat.com], and
Surfy [surfy.com]
These have gotta be even easier to use than Napster, so the RIAA won't see any great benefit from buying off Napster.
I really like Daily Phat [dailyphat.com], cos of the way it gives you three different methods of obtaining the music you're searching for. Firstly its an Amazon referrer, so you get links to the CD on Amazon. Then you get the gnutella search results. Lastly you get the emusic results (for sale MP3s, usually about a $1 a track). Its a neat way of deflecting all the "aiding piracy" criticism.
Napster will SELL-OUT just like mp3.com (Score:3)
Does anyone REALLY think the Record Companies/RIAA are trying to KILL Napster? Even if they could do so, another would follow in its place, so the answer is no. Music is going digital, and the carpetbagging middlemen in the music distribution business cannon stop it. In Microsoft terms, the RIAA is playing "Embrace and Extend".
However, if the RIAA can abuse the court systems to force mp3.com and Napster to the table, then they are in a position to negotiate. MP3.com and Napster are corporations with stockholders to answer to... if they are offered partnerships with the RIAA, they'll accept. The trick is for the RIAA to do this without providing evidence that they are colluding and violating Anti-Trust laws.
Napster can offer musicians a way out of indentured slavery. It can change the music industry forever, and free artists from writing MTV-specific music which promotes brands and consumerism. We can get "albums" that were not churned out like some Metallica Load/Re-load episode, to satisfy "contractual obligations".
Furthermore, when wireless TCP/IP goes into EVERY radio, we can if we choose give a big middle finger to the US Gov't and the FCC, and tune into offshore "pirate radio" in such numbers that they will be FORCED into more narrowly defining their roles into guarding the people's bandwidth, rather than auctioning it off for-profit and acting as censors.
MP3.com's already making deals with the RIAA. If we lose Napster, we are handed a setback. The best possible outcome for us is if we support the free music distributers, and if Napster, etc. make deals DIRECTLY with the ARTISTS themselves.
Re:mp3.com (Score:1)
kicking some CAD is a good thing [cadfu.com]
FINALLY.... (Score:1)
Check my
Have a fun day!!!
--
Trojan horses (Score:1)
Multiple trojan files would have to be created to be effective, or else people will figure out "the 4126332-byte Eminem song is a trojan", and avoid it. Or people will immediately go to 1:00 and check to see if there's a message (you could even use the "resume" feature to start downloading one minute into the song, and check before you download the whole thing). So they'd have to use different messages in different locations to do this. And if there are multiple trojans made, with messages at different locations, it would be possible to use 2 or 3 of the trojans and reconstruct the entire song from them.
Re:Napster cutting a deal? (Score:1)
Err... what? I'm a bit confused by your statement. If you're saying that Napster, Inc. doesn't provide much of the music that people use Napster (the client) to download, you're wrong. Napster, Inc. doesn't provide any of it, but I'm sure you knew that. So could you clarify what you were trying to say?
The hardest part about mp3's is not in finding music, it's in finding a particular song. If it isn't popular (ie, the 18-25 group) you won't find it, unless it's techno.
Well, this one is entirely subjective, but I beg to differ. I have musical taste reasonably distinct from the mainstream, and I have never not been able to find a given song on Napster. Though that is, of course, just my personal experience.
Re:Napster will SELL-OUT just like mp3.com (Score:2)
If record companies (or something like napster, gnutella on the other side) wake up someday to create some online distribution system, there are still two glaring questions that haven't been answered, one for record companies, and one for those who oppose them.
For record companies, how can you create a secure system of distribution? Most people here would agree, I think, that you can't. The economist article conveniently ignored this fact. Any n-bit encryption or whatever else they come up with will either be cracked, or rejected, if they go for some DIVX type service. Any system they come up with won't make unencrypted mp3s go away either. I think this is why they are still trying to defeat mp3s in the court, since there is simply no way they can maintain the level of control over copyright that they've had in the past. They recognize this after the DVD debacle.
The other issue is this. For those who would like to see record companies dead, how can bands flourish without megabuck promotion that record companies provide? This is more of a social issue than a technical one. To succeed you need a much more proactive populace, which is hard to get in todays pacified, seen one-commercial-too-many society. Americans seem to simply go for whats popular so they can fit in, rather than explore other options. Still, this can always change.
Personally I see the second issue having a better chance than the first, since the first is almost impossible to implement in the way corporations need it to in order to even make money. Perhaps in the future no bands will have a huge fan base, instead there might be a large number of bands with a decent size cult following. i think this is ore likely.
These issues are still very new, and a long, long way from being resolved. Whatever happens in the courts won't change the situation. It doesn't matter if napster sells out or if the RIAA wins ever suit it files, consumers will go with what they want.
Tabloid's site (Score:1)
Rolls wrote in to tell us about the Tabloids' Web site promoting Napster mischief
To clarify, that's mischief as in trying to disrupt Napster service, i.e. with fake tracks.
I don't have any real opinion on the 'napster: is it good or bad' debate, but I had a look anyway... I had a look at the 'Unsafe Sex' page and either these people don't get programming and Internet security or they are exadurating/lying for shock value.
I want to keep out of this whole debate because I really don't care, but this information is wrong.
Just my $0.02
Michael Tandy
Inelastic demand, monopolistic competition (Score:1)
They say:
<PREACH target="to_choir">
The prices are that way because, in a sense, they represent monopolistic competitors -- one group's music is not a perfect substitute for another. On top of that, the demand for music is fairly inelastic due to the lack of substitutes, meaning that changes in price don't affect demand much, as demand is relatively fixed.
In other words, because they can, record companies are charging outrageous amounts of money for CDs (and as the "Minimum Advertised Price" issue illustrated, they're using collusive practices to achieve these ends). People can choose to either (a) not listen to the music they desire, or (b) pay through the nose. Demand is inelastic and we end up having only one supplier, and so what happens is that we pay through the nose.
Other solutions such as "listening to the radio" are non-solutions. Radios aren't permitted or aren't effective in many venues (eg. where I work), and certainly don't work on demand. (Play song XYZ now!) Not to mention, many songs are simply never broadcast.
Other distribution channels represent a threat to the current monopolistic state that the record companies are in. The limited monopoly granted by copyright has been transformed into a nearly unlimited monopoly in recent years, and the record companies are fighting tooth and nail to keep that monopoly. I say it just stinks.
</PREACH> --Joe--
Re:Napster will SELL-OUT just like mp3.com (Score:1)
It doesn't have PUBLIC stockholders. But private companies are able to give stocks away for incentive reasons. In fact, that's the number one reason for companies to go IPO. Not because the owners want to get rich from their shares being worth more, but the #3, #4 - #10 employees want to see their carrot turn into serious cash. Besides what to the venture capitalists get out of pouring money into it?
Sure they're not public, blah blah blah, but that is their main goal. So they are working towards the same goals as someone who already is publically traded. There's nothing wrong with his post, except maybe that someone beat you to it.
Rader
A Good Use of MP3s (Score:1)
I'm sure it's been stated several times here, but I think that this is what the RIAA is scared of the most. Why would anyone pay ~$16 for a one over-marketed, over-played, generic, piece-of-crap song when they can now easily find something more interesting outside the RIAA monopolised mainstream?
The thing that prevents the RIAA from making singles available online is that they know that most of their products/artists, are only good for that one song. I think this is why you can almost never find a CD single of a Top 40 artist. They know that if people could buy singles then people wouldn't buy the album unless it was *gasp* actually good.
But you already knew that.. Preaching to the choir...
---
Re:The Tabloids & Napster (Score:1)
That's what we want isn't it, government approved rock n roll?
Whooh, we're partying now!
"We're rock stars who do Pepsi Cola commercials."
Gnorr. Suck Satan's cock. Put that big scaly pecker down your gullet. Drink that black worm jism. Drink it! Fill your little bellies.
I think relevant in this case...
---
Re:First RIAA vs. Napster, now RIAA & Napster? (Score:1)
A sell-out won't matter (Score:1)
The Economist is right (Score:1)
This is correct, they certainly have the resources (money/copyrights) to do it.
However, you can't put the word "profitable" in front of "closed" and have it remain true...
Re:gnute.com? confused (Score:1)
Secondly, when you click on the user id you don't get anything useful, I think the intention was to display all the files on an individuals server.
I really prefer dailyphat.com [dailyphat.com], it works a lot better and most of the links work cause it's just a front end like the capn bry server.
A better napster than napster (Score:2)
alt.mp3.*. Want the latest metallica, go to alt.mp3.metallica. Want the latest Perl Jam? alt.mp3.perljam. Want the latest Live Goat Porn? alt.mp3.livegoatporn.
The usenet store and forward method allows for truly anonymous posting. There is no central company to attack (Much like gnutilla) and there's no way for the poster to tell who's downloading the data.
Moreover, an anonymous poster could establish a GPG key he could use to sign his postings, establish it on a keyserver somewhere, and manage to be an anonymous poster with a reputation. A web of trust will eventually be necessary given the countertactics the industry is currently developing.
Re:Inelastic demand, monopolistic competition (Score:1)
I certainly could play that game of self-denial, but honestly, I would rather not. Sure, I don't need to own a music collection or listen to music at all, but why be a martyr against a Big Business that doesn't give a sh*t?
It's sorta like saying "I don't like who's running for office, so I won't vote," only listening to music is far more enjoyable and far more difficult to put aside than, say, voting.
Yes, people have a sense of entitlement to music and other creative works. In fact, until recent years they were entitled to those works after a limited period of copyright expired. Nowadays, with the deep pocketed lobbyists pushing the copyright term to +infinity, we are being made into criminals for acts which were originally constitutionally protected.
You're damn right I have a sense of entitlement. I want my rights back, thank you.
--Joe--
Re:Too little too late? (Score:1)
Careful, now. I've never kicked a kiloton of combined mucus and lard, but I'm sure that it would be a good way to get your shoe stuck.
mp3's and such (Score:1)
:)
Share some love with stopnapster.com (Score:1)
ROBINSON, MICHAEL
6114 lasalle ave #357
OAKLAND, CA 94611
May I suggest some of these services:
Send fresh dog turds! [dogdoo.com]
Share some love with stopnapster.com (Score:1)
ROBINSON, MICHAEL
6114 lasalle ave #357
OAKLAND, CA 94611
May I suggest some of these services:
Send fresh dog turds! [dogdoo.com]
Re:Napster will SELL-OUT just like mp3.com (Score:1)
To think that the Napster people want to save music and free it for the masses is such a idealistic piece of shit. They are in it for the money.
Okay, have the artists deal directly with Napster. Suddenly, Napster becomes the only channel for distributing music on line. They become the RIAA with a different name, screwing both artist and consumer alike.
Profit is the motive. Get real.
Just had to get that Metallica dig in there, eh?
--
then it comes to be that the soothing light at the end of your tunnel is just a freight train coming your way
Re:Napster cutting a deal? (Score:1)
Don't be sad, one day you'll be in that age, too.
Recording industry cannot compete in the long run (Score:2)
I don't see how the industry could possibly create something competitive... most people are cheap. They will put up with a lot of inconvenience to save a few dollars. And Napster is very little inconvenience, compared to previous alternatives to coughing up retail for a CD.
Napster will be improved upon. Either they will spend some of their VC money on something other than legal fees, or something better will appear and replace it. I don't see what the existing industry has to offer that fans couldn't offer to each other with a little work--better quality files, a good indexing system, info from liner notes? And if artists got involved in the new distribution systems, that doesn't really leave any place for the RIAA members.
The Internet has profound implications for the notion of "intellectual property". Many laws are not at all enforceable anymore, and most people cannot convince themselves that there is any harm in freely copying information meant for mass consumption in the first place. The recording industry will of course fight the changes, but ultimately they cannot stop the tide.
Re:Napster @ fault ? - not (Score:1)
Napster is not to blame. The RIAA is to blame for this violation of our 17th Amendment [house.gov] rights. Just because the RIAA has vast reserves of cash at its hand to sway our representatives doesn't make its rape of the Constitution right.
Listen to what the puff-man sez. (Score:2)
stopnapster.com (Score:2)
Something similar to Advogato.org's "trust metrics" [advogato.org] might be useful for deciding whose list of signatures to trust.
Discl: Just thought I'd toss this idea out. I'm not actually knowledgable about digital signatures, and I only skimmed advogato's page and don't know that much about graph theory.