Napster Cuts Deal With BMG 149
n8willis writes: "According to a Reuters story I caught on Excite this morning, Bertelsmann AG (owners of BMG among others) has agreed to drop its lawsuit against Napster in exchange for equity in a new 'membership'-based music service to be jointly 'developed' by the two. This 'service' will allegedly be 'secure.' Anybody smell membership 'dues?'" Probably inevitable for Napster to cut deals a la MP3.com -- but the implementation of this joint project will be the thing to watch.
And this shocks who? (Score:2)
Looks like BMG is teaming up with Napster to "catch the hype" and lead the way to a system that will allow music lovers to get only the music that they want (instead of a CD with one good song and 15 pieces of crap). This will be good for the music industry because listeners will be more inclined to pay more for the songs they want.
I think the whole "Napster problem" that the RIAA has been having is simply that Napster beat them to the punch. Now they are suing Napster with the covert goal of using the Napster audience to make a bigger profit.
Planned (Score:1)
Re:Not like MP3.com (Score:1)
Now everyone will want a piece of the pie (Score:1)
Re:Don't use "apostrophes" as 'quotes' (Score:1)
No [nandotimes.com] they [slashdot.org] don't [ustreas.gov] do [treas.gov] that [slashdot.org] at [slashdot.org] all [slashdot.org] ... [slashdot.org]
...Or do they?
This whole Napster thing is a bunch of BS (Score:1)
WHat they should do is start kissing Napster's ass and beg them for a chunk of the advertising banner programs' money that Napster should start. Just like NetZero. It's still free, but you have to put up with banners. Everybody wins!
I would have never thought that this case would go this far...
--------------
what it's all about (Score:2)
"Let's scare the record companies shitless". yeah, they probably knew they'd get sued, yeah, maybe they thought they could skank around it with "fair use", (which had nothing to do with Napster making ad banner revenue off of other people's content), but in the end, they knew that the music companies didn't have any technology for this high-demand market, and knew that in the process of the lawsuits, they'd end up being the subcontractors for that technology. I'm betting there's already allowances in Napster's architecture for future versions that provide "secure content". Maybe nothing functional, but I bet it was provided for as a feature down the road.
y'all have been sold like a sheik's harem.
Not like MP3.com at all (Score:1)
The only way they can make this work is by replacing the current model with something else--seems doubtful that they'll be successful (especially if the music they offer is some SDMI compliant variant)...
-- Shamus
Insert pithy saying here
Support the artists by going to their concerts!! (Score:1)
OC-12 way to slow! (Score:1)
They would be foolish to get rid of there P2P(peer to peer) system. It would cost a ton more to purchase the bandwidth necassary for 20 million users.
Time is Change.
Re:Net = Radio? (Score:1)
Napster as a Business (Score:1)
Napster cuts deal with Blue Man Group? (Score:1)
Re:Not like MP3.com (Score:2)
Shhhh, Signal11'll hear you. He's already posted a story on kuro5hin [slashdot.org].
Secure? MP3? (Score:1)
Re:'I Don't see' (Score:2)
You stupid twit.
--
Offspring (Score:1)
If I recall correctly, The Offspring weren't backing down which is when Sony threatened to sue. At that point the Offspring were still going to go through with it and there was the possibility of them suing Sony, but they then worked out a compromise to avoid everyone suing everyone.
-----
*** Facts are the enemy of Truth ***
You don't have to "smell" the membership dues... (Score:2)
Hey, good thing for Napster. They wanted to wake up the music distribution business I think, and if that's the case this is their first major success.
Bad thing for the freebies,eh? Yeah, I guess. But if it results in a system whereby I can pay less for a song or two than for a whole CD, I'd use it.
ok folks .. it's crunch time... (Score:1)
pezpunk
Internet killed the video star,
Now Time Warner seems to be falling in line too (Score:2)
Re:'I Don't see' (Score:1)
Re:This doesn't solve their problems (Score:2)
On the business/legal aspects of this move, what they (BMG) have done is actually forego the lawsuit. This partnership appears to involve a great deal of Napster equity being allotted to BMG (whether this is strictly as a security on the loan or whether this is in perpetuity is unclear). I would suspect that the other four major label corporations will somehow join the partnership (i.e. they will also be bribed with an equity position), or that BMG is sufficiently equipped to fight a quick battle about royalties with those companies.
What I don't see is any mention of the following much more difficult questions: who is going to scan the music (currently done by an army of volunteer rippers), what format will the files be (if not mp3, how do they plan to implement this, unlike the switch from vinyl to CD or VHS to DVD, the industry does not have any control over the mp3 format, nor the majority of the tools used to make and play mp3s), how do they expect to store files (these files require serious bandwidth-- will they be continuing to use peer to peer?), if they continue p2p who will the hosting peers be (I certainly wouldn't host files for them without compensation-- at least the current honor system seems to work fairly well), if the files and hosting are done as now who will verify quality and accuracy (if I'm paying for Napster, why would I tolerate incomplete or falsely labeled files), and finally, how do they plan to change any single aspect of their current service without beginning to erode their user base significantly (most of these questions have very possible answers that I suspect will drive away users, and in combination will have an exponential impact-- that is one change drives away one user, but two changes drives away four, etc etc)?
there goes napster.. (Score:2)
//rdj
Streaming Audio of Conference Call (Score:1)
It has begun.
So is everyone going to buy a subscription and let the RIAA profit off of their bandwith? Unless, of course, they give rebates for our bandwith usage....
Re:I won't pay... (Score:1)
Refrag
at least... (Score:1)
-- Don't you hate it when people comment on other people's
I wouldn't necessarily assume you'll have to pay (Score:2)
So... why is this a bad thing? (Score:1)
I, for one, use napster. I admit it. However, I do feel bad about it. For better or worse, most of the stuff on here is not legal, and the artists aren't being paid for it. I use it because I want to have a copy of the music, but I have no intention of paying $15 for a CD. If they can come up with a method so that I can get the music I want at a reasonable price, I would be the first to pay, rather than simply taking it. And if that solution involves Napster, so what?
It's fine to talk about how "information wants to be free," but we really shouldn't whine becuase our free music is being taken away. Do the honest thing and support the artists, even if it does mean giving record companies a piece of the cut. It's the right thing to do.
Re:Not like MP3.com (Score:2)
what's with the single quotes? (Score:1)
Re:Don't use "apostrophes" as 'quotes' (Score:1)
Napster controls what goes through their servers, xerox can't control a machine that they do not own.
Got it?
--
The end-end of napster. (Score:1)
What will happen next is that Napster will sign a deal that will give Bertelsmann AG veto powers in deciding future services (business model) but there will be no interest from Bertelsmann AG in doing anything further at all, after all they have gotten what everyboy wanted "shutting Napster down for good".
And after two years when you all will have just distant memories of a service called "Napster", just remember this: "I told you so!".
--
Why pay for drugs when you can get Linux for free ?
Well, this should be interesting. (Score:1)
Does anyone expect technical proficiency from the people that brought us Napster, possibly the most poorly written very popular software since Windows? Not a bright move by Bertelsmann...
Re:Net = Radio? (Score:1)
Re:Not like MP3.com (Score:1)
Will napster pay me for my HDD use? (Score:1)
On a more serious note I do have a question. Is there any reason at all that I should pay for my Bill Hicks MP3s. Since he has no direct decendants the record label is making all of the money off of him and they didn't contribute a single fucking thing to his career. So there is no good reason I should pay them for someone elses work. Ahh yes. I think I will pop in my burned copy of Arizona Bay right now and laugh my ass off and go abot my day.
Re:I wouldn't necessarily assume you'll have to pa (Score:1)
Please tell me this statment isn't serious. I'm so sure that people that order CD's from a club are doing it with the express purpose of ripping off musicians .
CNN states that BMG will go on suing Napster (Score:1)
Some Perspetive (Score:1)
Now, I would also like to point out that the record companies have been demonized quite a bit during this whole discussion. GOOD. The thing that really bugs me about these guys is that since the institution of MP3's and RIO players and all of that, guess what, their sales have still gone up! And this starving artist bit is really getting on my nerves as well. The only artists that would be hurt by Napster and MP3's are the ones who have the big names, and their not. When was the last time you traded a Ray Stevens MP3? It is only the multimillionaire artists who are effected at ALL. This is just another way for government to restrict information on the Internet.
Re:Don't use "apostrophes" as 'quotes' (Score:1)
Preserving the experience? (Score:1)
Perserve the Napster experience? Yay - we get to keep our console! Our interface MIGHT remain unchanged! Wow! What a concession!
What else can they preserve if they take away the 'free' part? As I see it, that WAS the quintessential Napster experience.
Wow. (Score:2)
THen they get sued by every major label out there.
THEN they somehow cut a deal to develop state of the art music subscription systems?
Egads.. that's fucked up.
It'll never happen. Where's the talent?
Re:Pay Money For Music???? (Score:1)
Re:This doesn't solve their problems (Score:2)
While it is possible to do that, that means stiffing your previous investors. If you do that, then it's going to be hard to find new investors.
Re:$5 a month for unlnited downloads (Score:1)
Membership Terms (Score:1)
Now I'll get the mp3 of the month and get charged an exhorbiant fee unless I mail in my decision not to receive it.
Re:I won't pay... (Score:1)
Re:'I Don't see' (Score:2)
secondly, I'm not siggy, I am Anne Marie.
Haven't you been paying attention you putrid crusty split tail?
--
When I was a Kid... (Score:1)
What happened to society? People used to care for eachother and now that only happens in small towns if that! And now corps. are starting to slap our hands for sharing.
This disturbs me. It distrubs me very much because the trends seems going that way. And gaining way too much momentum!
For example that International Treaty that will make legal hacking illegal. That is the field I want to get into and once I get a job doing it I don't want my hands to be tied.
Canada probably won't sign it...but it still scares me. At least for my future colleages.
These things may not seem to be linked on the surface but the underlying principles are the same.
---------
If you truly love the memory, you must set it free()!
---------
Re:This doesn't solve their problems (Score:1)
Re:Not like MP3.com (Score:2)
Yeah you're right... that's probably not the way TV and radio stations make money. Who said advertisment was profitable anyway.
"When I was a little kid my mother told me not to stare into the sun...
Re:CNN states that BMG will go on suing Napster (Score:1)
Wait a minute! They are going INVEST in a company that has FOUR other pending lawsuits?! The only explanation I see is that Bertelsmann already has an informal agreement with the other recording companies. Of course, they will join the "alliance"--it will give them control over the company that might take them out of business.
Re:I wouldn't necessarily assume you'll have to pa (Score:1)
That was the point of the statement--few people realize they're ripping off the artist when they buy from a CD club, but everyone has been "educated" into feeling guilty for downloading from Napster. But the reality of things is ironically quite the opposite--Napster costs the musician nothing and ends up selling more of his CDs, whereas CD clubs cost the musician a lot and sell very few of his CDs if any.
One is excellent free publicity, the other terrible publicity that the artist pays a lot for and the labels profit from sleazily. I wasn't accusing people who use CD clubs of being immoral--I used to use them before I knew the business model involved--just uninformed.
Re:Comparison with Prohibition and 55 mph (Score:1)
However, I'm just wondering where TRUE peer-to-peer programs such as FreeNet, MojoNation, Gnutella, etc. fit in? While it's convenient and easy to download music files through Napster, it is just as convenient and easy to get the same files through one of these programs.
Furthermore, there is very little chance of the authors of these programs 'cutting a deal' with any record agency, for two reasons:
(1) The programs don't rely on a central server - there is no one to sue.
(2) The programs aren't restricted to music - any type of file can be swapped. The authors of the program have no real interest in music, as such.
Now imagine that people have to start paying for Napster downloads. Undoubtably, a significant proportion of Napster uses will do so.
However, because of the simple fact that the other p2p networks are (and will always be) free, can't we expect that a large number of Napster users will simply start using a different service?
In other words, could Napster be killing itself by making this type of deal?
The most interesting thing about all this, though, is that the true p2p networks are - even to an anti-capitalist like me - scary! There is _no_ restriction on the material that can appear on these networks. This doesn't worry me significantly - we're all old enough to make our own decisions about what to view - but it does raise unresolvable issues.
Take, for instance, child pornography. Certain adult members of the population have decided that they enjoy looking at the bodies of young children. Society has (and rightly so, in this case) decided that this is wrong - it constitutes a violation of the child's rights, and furthermore it may lead to more intrusive violations.
Yet p2p networks allow the unrestricted trading of such material.
On the other hand, though, p2p may be the only medium through which citizens of various countries can establish their basic right of unrestricted communication. How do you reconcile these two issues?
Sorry - this got way offtopic, but it's an interesting question nontheless.
-Shane Stephens
Why bother with napster? (Score:1)
Congratulations, Napster (Score:1)
None of you reading this really thought that Hummer Winblad VP invested $10 million in Napster just so you could get music for free, did you? Not only did they leverage music piracy to gain leverage with the industry, but they also leveraged the public's "stick it to the man" attitude as well. I especially enjoyed the "write your Congressional Representative and tell them about the evil music industry" bit they had on their website a while back.
Well, the Napster people are laughing all the way to the bank. I honestly applaud them for a well executed plan.
But for some odd reason, I get the feeling that independent artists and labels won't be receiving any royalty payments for music traded through BMG Napster.
Next: TCP tax to benefit RIAA (Score:2)
So, what's next? The internet backbone companies will make a deal with the RIAA to pay 2 cents per megabyte transfered?
Okay, that's sounds like a bit of a stretch, nobody would go for that. But let's say an author writes a program and doesn't intend it to be used primarily for copyright infringement, but it ends up being used widely for pirating MS Windows (eg. Hotline). Would it be right for the author to be forced to pay MS for every copy that's pirated over his/her service? No. Will they anyway? Probably.
So, what's the difference? Intention of the author? Perhaps, but that's still not much. If an author writes a tool and intends it to be used for evil purposes, but only 1% of its use is for piracy, will the offended party go after the author for forced payments? No. Will this settlement mean that companies will apply more indescriminate and random rules in deciding who to go after, because the public thinks that P2P's have bad vibes? Yes.
--
Re:Congratulations, Napster (Score:1)
I'll only add this:
Will Napster's "defenders" ever realize that they're pawns in a PR ploy, that they're being whipped up by Napster (and other unwitting pawns) to bark and whine in public until a settlement (the only way Napster can ever hope to see a profit) seems attractive to the RIAA, because "everyone's against them?"
The settlement will come: Napster will get money (by becoming an RIAA "partner" whose service is bought); the RIAA will look conciliatory (and get a pile of Napster "customers"); everyone who's not the RIAA or NPSTR (coming soon to a NASDAQ near you) will get nothing.
Indies/"artists" and "Information wants to be free" types--zilch for you, though without your free PR it wouldn't have been possible. Way to "stick it to the man," guys.
You are now within the aura.
Royalties have to be paid somehow (Score:1)
So where does that leave Napster. Napster will probably have to negotiate some type of mechanical license. I also wonder why the RIAA is so caught up in this because they don't have much at all to do with licensing and royalties. Most royalties are collected by ASCAP, BMI, and/or SESCA. I think they just want to get their hand in the cookie jar again.
Agreed... sortof (Score:2)
What is important to note here is that the Peer 2 Peer philosophy is out of the bag. I think it would be really funny to pay for Napster. I'm going to pay so someone else can download BMG's music off of my computer?
Its also important to note the precedence that is being set here. Napster is used for illegal stuff, true, but it does have legitimate applications.
Things like this, (and to a much greater extent, the DMCA) are encroaching on our freedoms. If we don't fight them now, it will be even harder to fight later when more serious violations of our consumer rights are proposed. This is why we are all "whining" here on slashdot.
Captain_Frisk
Napster Sells out! (Score:2)
Napster had to come to this move. It was a matter of time. And of course, now all we get are people bitching about having to pay for Napster now. Folks, Napster sold out because they didn't have a choice, and were probably planning to do it all along. If you didn't see this coming, I'm sorry for you.
Go ahead, mod me down. I've got Karma to burn.
Membership model ideal for Napster (Score:2)
IMO, a membership model that is reasonably priced [*] will be the ideal way for Napster to go. Pay $10 a month to access anyone else that has subscribed as well as possibly the major studio's 'Napster' areas. It'll generate profits for the studios, and would help to boost CD sales, so that's only more money for RIAA and others. It would also benefit the users, as now the trading of digital music would be legitamized, and you can get the latest tunes with minimal fees.
There are definitely security issues; needless to say is the issue of SDMI-like protocols to prevent music that may be distributed by official channels which is only meant to registered users of the Napster client from getting to non-members, without infringing on user's fair use. If Napster does go to the member-based system, you then need to secure the central server, to make sure only registered clients may connect, and this means that new versions of the Napster client would have to be written and hopefully blessed by the RIAA for all OSes (This may require them to distribute a specialized MP3 player that is the only one that will play those MP3s from the membership Napster, which is a very bad solution, but quite possible in the RIAA's eyes). The RIAA may also want to have accountability in the various transfers -- adding a bit of info to each MP3 as it's distributed by this new client so they can tell the history of any MP3 from any server, which is very dangerous in terms of privacy. While some of these issues are definitely for the protection of RIAA's profits, I think the fact that BMG is working out a deal indicates that they may be willing to cooperate to some extent for the end user.
[*] There ought to be a few levels of monthly payments, depending on bandwidth type and expected usage; those with dialups aren't going to want to pay the same price as those with broadband connections, and some will only want maybe a half-dozen songs a month, while others might leech. Prices ought to range from $5 to $20/month to make this fair on all sides.
Re:I won't pay... (Score:1)
Mojo Nation is DOA (Score:2)
Good god, man (Score:2)
WHAT KIND OF WORLD DO WE LIVE IN?!?!
If you didn't see this coming, you are very, very, stupid.
---
Re:Don't use "apostrophes" as 'quotes' (Score:1)
Now you,
oh oh oh but we have gnutella and freenet and blah blah blah my pussy hurts
You stupid tit, don't you see it's shit like this that makes the lawmakers pass more and more restrictive laws?
There was never a need for a law against murder until someone commited one.
You got it asshole?
--
ME TOO! When I was a Kid... (Score:1)
Excuse me while I "share" some Windows source code with my Russian friends.
George Lee
Re:Good god, man (Score:1)
Re:And the meaning of secure here is? (Score:2)
The indie side of Napster may be strengthened here, actually. If a subscription service is developed, then indies (a la MP3.com) will have more incentive to participate. Perhaps they should do that first, so the indies can side with Napster in the inevitable format wars...
Re:Basics of Economics/Justice (Score:1)
This is irrelevant in the case of Napster, since it is commercial use; i.e. people are using it as a substitute for buying CD's (and if you need proof of THAT just look at all of the junior high school students on Slashdot who produly proclaim that they haven't bought a CD since they discovered Napster). There are several legal precedents in the past couple of decades which support this. There has NEVER in the history of copyright law, been an instance where somebody has been granted use of the ENTIRE work (as is transmitted currently via Napster - the whole song) as 'fair use'.
How pays for the bandwidth? (Score:1)
turning the majors against each other (Score:1)
[TMB]
Re:Not like MP3.com (Score:2)
treke
Re:Pay Money For Music???? (Score:2)
You are willing to give up your rights so that the mean man doesn't come bother you.
But everyone is entitled to their own opinion, (and I am entitled to call them a pussy).
I however would rather fight for what is legally and morally right. I will move over to opennap and be done with what started out as a good, simple idea, and turned into a very interesting test of peoples beliefs, and moral fortitude.
Re:Don't use "apostrophes" as 'quotes' (Score:2)
--
Re:I won't pay... (Score:2)
How exactly do you know this? It amazes me (yes, even after all this time), how people will say things like this on the net. Do you accuse random people you meet in the street of being a liar and a thief? Presumably only if they say that they use Napster...
Mike
Still a Vinyl Junkie (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:4)
Apple Soup (Score:2)
O P E N___S O U R C E___H U M O R [mikegallay.com]
And the meaning of secure here is? (Score:2)
Not like MP3.com (Score:3)
Yes, this is sad, but it was inevitable. You can't have a small commercial enterprise both making money and fighting the massive record companies -- it is hard to do one, much less both, at the same time. And for a company with no profit model, it makes even less sense.
So we wait, and we hope, and perhaps Napster will turn out both legal and better. Somehow, though, I doubt it.
Re:Not like MP3.com (Score:2)
MP3[.com] is paying for the rights to license the songs for a limited time, so that they can stream them like one would stream a radio station. However, Napster is licensing in a different way - they are allowing people to download the songs, and keep them permanently.
There's no difference between the MP3 that you can download and the one that's streamed over TCP.
If you want to download (save a copy of) an MP3 that mp3.com doesn't have a download link for, all you have to do is tell your MP3 player to save it.
Example using mp3.com [mp3.com] and xmms [xmms.org]: click the "hi-fi play" button in the web browser; wait for xmms to get the URL; click the PL button in xmms; hold down the Load List button in the lower-right corner of the new window, and drag the mouse up to select Save List; in the resulting dialog, type some file name. The file name that you just typed will now contain the URL for the 128 kbps MP3 file -- you can do wget `cat file` or whatever.
The simple fact is, you can't prevent people from saving copies of things that you send them. If you have a web page, you can't prevent people from reading its source, because you send them the source every time they request the page. (CGI is different; you're sending the output of a program instead of a static file). The same applies to audio streams, video streams, etc. If you send the data to someone, that person has the data. Even if my xmms example didn't work, it would still be possible to use a wrapper program that writes the incoming MP3 encoded audio stream to a file and also sends that audio stream to the real xmms.
Re:Won't Ever Work (Score:2)
Re:ok folks .. it's crunch time... (Score:2)
Opennap [sourceforge.net]. Get yourself an Opennap client and start using one of the opennap servers.
Re:Not like MP3.com (Score:2)
Actually it would be much cheaper for napster to keep there P2P system. There is no way they could furnish the bandwidth for continued transfer rates. Right now on campus i get 300-400k sec and for napster to have enough bandwidth for even a 1000(much less than there 20 million user base) users like me, would cost a fortune. P2P is the future there is no reason to go back to client/server. If you look at the protocol napster can still track what songs you are requesting to download. The only disadvantage i could see would be quality control.
Time is Change.
This makes me want to vomit (Score:3)
Of course, it's hard to deny that a settlement probably is in Napster's best interests. Maybe this just means that we can't let corporations fight for our civil rights; they are not citizens, and thus will almost always have little to lose by giving up.
Yes, we're still free to fight on our own, but this is going to take a lot of momentum away. With P2P fragmented amongst a dozen different networks, it's going to be hard to be able to point to something and say, look, if 35 million people engage in a behavior, then by any concept of a social contract based government it cannot possibly be illegal. What are the chances David Boies is going to work pro-bono for Gnutella?
Ugh. Well maybe the rest of the big 5 will be typically shortsided and this will all fall through, and we'll finally get this decaying mess of an anachronistic copyright system hauled in front of the Supreme Court. Or maybe this is better; maybe it's best that it doesn't get that far until the costs of letting media conglomerates rewrite the copyright laws becomes abundantly clear to everyone.
Come on, this is NOT the end (Score:2)
What's going to happen? There's going to be another P2P file sharing network built. Gnutella is a start, but it's flooded and impossible to get any information from. Scour never returns any viable results for me, so that's out.
Other posters have mentioned that mojonation is having a problem because of a small user base. OF COURSE they have a small user base; they are competing with Napster, who gets all the publicity, so people think "oh, that's the only one out there".
Once Napster sells out to the big corporations, then another file sharing network will step up and take its place. If that one falls, we'll hack out another program, using a different protocol. Saying (free) music sharing is dead is like saying that because George Washington is dead and buried, the presidency is no longer worth anything. Somebody else WILL step up to the plate and take over.
------
Here's how it works: (Score:3)
That's like twelve downloads for the price of one!
* A handling charge of $4.95 will be charged for each "FREE" music selection purchased.
Re:I wouldn't necessarily assume you'll have to pa (Score:5)
BMG is a major record label. They run the BMG CD club, just like Columbia, another major label, runs Columbia House.
Ironically, it is these CD clubs, not Napster, which are stealing from artists. When you get your 12 CDs for 1 penny, those CDs don't just come free from the sky--they come directly out of the artist's pockets.
Yes, that's right. Not only is the artist not making any money (like Napster), they are actually losing it when you order their CD from a CD club. All those CDs are chocked up as "marketing costs", and billed to the artist--along with recording costs, studio time, tour costs, and other promotional costs. (The musician pays every last cent of the cost of recording and selling their album, but the label, not the artist, owns the copyright on their work.) Meanwhile, the label--not the artist, mind you--makes a huge profit by tricking people into paying for all those extra CDs that come along with membership. (For those who don't know, you don't have to pay for anything you don't order; just send it back.)
And finally, unlike Napster, no one who rips off a musician by ordering their CD through a CD club ever goes out and pays for it, because they already have the real thing. A disgusting practice, all in all--one which Napster was helping to end.
Re:'I Don't see' (Score:2)
As if `membership` in the story above needed quotes.
Whither the Napster clones? (Score:2)
Or is BMG just trying to possibly get on the side of the geeks (and failing at it?)
Thus sprach DrQu+xum, SID=218745.
I won't pay... (Score:2)
I'd much rather Napster fight the good fight -- but it's probably naive to assume that they will.
I use Napster to check out songs off of CDs that I want to buy or from bands I've heard of but never heard.
Refrag
Re: (Score:2)
This doesn't solve their problems (Score:2)
-B
Re:ok folks .. it's crunch time... (Score:2)
never underestimate the idiocy of a bunch of dalnet losers putting their heads together.
----
Re:This makes me want to vomit (Score:2)
Keep in mind that napster requires a central server to function, and that it is completly controled by a corporation. I don't think this has any real implications for p2p.
Yes, that's true. The server doesn't necessarily have to be controlled by a corporation (duh), but as long as servers cost money most of them likely will. (Don't forget OpenNap, though!)
The same principles hold, though. If it is "illegal" for a corporation to grep a list of hyperlinks for a given string, it is presumably illegal for an individual too. Besides, Gnutella (and presumably Freenet; haven't used it) scales very poorly, and is somewhat unusable for the medium-term. The obvious solution--cache servers--runs into the same legal issues as Napster.
Yes, I realize that there are important legal differences--Napster collects hyperlinks from many people and searches them, as opposed to Gnutella, which only searches your own. (Freenet is like Napster in this regard, though.) And, again, I realize that this does not legally set a precedent.
It's just that this Napster case was probably our best opportunity to have a definitive legal ruling on the technologies involved. Among them: the right to collect user-submitted hyperlinks without checking each for copyright violation; the right to return the results of a grep on those links; the right to exercise fair use in a manner which is not easily distinguishable from infringment to someone assisting in that use (and the right to assist when you don't know if use is fair or infringing). Finally, it might have been nice--say--to have a definitive ruling on whether noncommercial sharing of copyrighted music is fair use (as per the AHRA, hundreds of years of copyright law) or infringing (as per some asinine act snuck through Congress to help prosecute MP3 sharing college students, I forget the name).
Now we'll have to wait, and when these issues come up, it's unlikely that we'll have the full force of a society which almost universally uses and supports Napster (amongst those with access to and knowledge of it)--or the legal expertise of a David Boies--behind us. It's a sad commentary, but if 35 million people were enthusiastic users of DeCSS, that trial probably would have gone differently. If these issues are decided upon in some "fringe" case--like DeCSS--rather than the Napster case, the results are more likely to be similar.
(Also I'm sad at the prospect of losing my Napster, since I will certainly refuse to pay out of principle.)
Won't Ever Work (Score:5)
In any event, nothing will stop people from trading the music on free networks.
Record companies are still focused on the way they made money in the old days: controlling distribution and charging for every copy made. They seriously do not understand that they have lost control over distribution forever. Instead of expending so much time and energy trying unsuccessfully to control the flow of data throughout the 'Net (impossible), they should concentrate on making it as easy as possible for people to compensate the artists after they download music, no matter where they get it from. Directly compensate the artist/publisher for music you like. If your friend e-mails you an MP3 and you hate it, should you have to pay anyone for it? Hell no! You took nothing from them.
If it were as easy clicking a button on your MP3 player to send a 'tip' to the artist/publisher, people would do it. After all, everyone knows that artists have to make some money to keep producing art. People trading MP3's want to give money to their favorite artists, the problem right now is they cannot! About as close as you can get right now is to go buy the physical album or go see a concert and/or buy t-shirts and whatever. What if you live in Abu-Dabi and can't buy the album or go see a concert? Centuries of experience with busking and recent tipping experiments on the net (such as Steven King's _The Plant_) show that people will compensate artists if they like what they hear.
Let's face it, the 'Net provides the opportunity for more music from more artists to reach more people than ever before, for almost no cost to the artist/publisher. Instead of capitalizing on the inexpensive and efficient flow of data on the 'Net, the RIAA is trying to restrict it. It won't ever work and they will loose out as a result of it.
Setting up compensation systems for artists/publishers will be a long and political process, but people are working hard on the solutions.
Burris
Comparison with Prohibition and 55 mph (Score:2)
During Prohibition, as today, it was illegal to do something the public wanted to do badly enough to be willing to break the law. Furthermore, the process the Government wanted to forbid (fermentation then; file copying now) was something that individual citizens could do in the privacy of their own homes.
Ultimately, the failure of Prohibition spoke to the fact that all the law in the world won't help if enforcing it requires targeting tens of millions of otherwise law abiding citizens for intrusive examination and possible arrest.
The flip side of the Prohibition argument, though, works in the music industry's favor. Despite the fact that it is still possible to make gin in your bathtub, no one does it anymore, because alcohol is now available at a price and with restrictions the population generally approves of. To take a more recent example, the civil disobedience against the 55 mph speed limit did not mean that drivers wanted no speed limits, it simply meant they wanted a speed limit they could live with.
Techno-anarchists have often imagined a future where the state vanishes as people flock to anonymous digital cash and impregnable fortresses of data, and Napster is seen in some quarters as an anti-authoritarian move in just this direction.
But the lesson of Prohibition and 55 mph is that when a population rebels against a particular regulation, they are not agitating to throw off the chains of government interference, they are merely agitating for more comfortable chains.
Napster is not a revolution against the commercial music industry, it is a revolution within it.
-cla
What's wrong with dues? (Score:2)
Bitching about "now my music isn't free" isn't just selfish, it's ignorant, since there are probably a dozen other protocols and services you can use which ARE free and manifestly will remain so unless current law changes substantially. The only questions in my mind are what's a fair price for N/BMG to charge and what will they offer to justify it? Besides not having to switch download clients.
--
Re:ok folks .. it's crunch time... (Score:2)