Napster Traffic Drops 178
rev420 writes "Wired is reporting that Napster traffic has fallen by 60% since it instituted it's (er, the labels') name-blocking scheme. Despite their best efforts, few people seem to be finding name-scramblers like Catnap to be useful and the Aimster's Pig-Latin encoder is no longer available because Napster requested that it be disabled." No big shocker here.
How could you forget audioGnome? (Score:1)
Re:The real shame of it all... (Score:1)
Re:Not very surprising (Score:1)
Out of Print Books Availible Online (Score:1)
Where do you think they're going? (Score:5)
Creed? (Score:1)
Re:Creed? (Score:1)
Re:Creed? (Score:1)
Scour always supported Linux (Score:1)
Buying CDs (Score:2)
1) Aerosmith rocks, as does their new CD.
2) I needed the excercise from the walk.
3) I wanted to encode the disc at the highest possible quality setting, which to me means using MusicMatch Jukebox in Very High quality mode with error correcting (when it reads the CD) turned on. On my 900MHz Athlon, the CD rips and encodes at 0.7x speed. The CD now sits on my shelf, awaiting the next great digital recording standard.
Now, while I would grant you that I need all the excercise I can get, I would rather be able to conveniently purchase a licence to the CD online, download high-quality unrestricted files from high-bandwidth servers in the format of my choice, be able to redownload them later in newer formats or to replace my existing copies, and save a few bucks by cutting out the meatspace overhead. I'd certainly buy a lot more music. (Come to think of it, MusicMatch licenses their software in this manner...) Unfortunately, by fighting a lost cause in the most obnoxious manner possible, the record companies are merely making life more difficult than necessary for honest customers and giving priceless publicity to Napster, Gnutella, etc.
The record companies need to learn what the software industry figured out years ago: copy protection on mass-marketed products just aggravates your best customers.
This just means Napster will be faster ... (Score:2)
Having read the story I logged onto Napster, performed some searches and noticed a marked improvement in the speed at which results were returned. Maybe it was just me, but Napster was less responsive when the craze was at its height. Now that a huge chunk of users have left, Napster seems so much faster.
I'm not going to lament the absence of users because, chances are, they were not sharing files which I was looking for. I use Napster mainly to locate obscure hard-to-find, sometimes out-of-print tracks which I have no hope of being able to purchase. I also use it for techno, house and jungle mixes, many of them never released on CD or tape and most of them bootleg. Since I have no chance in hell of ever being able to find these items for purchase elsewhere, let alone be assured that the money will find its way to the music creators, then I have no qualms about my actions. If, however, I find the item somewhere I will purchase it but that has happened only once or twice.
Without those 60% I've still been able to find items of interest on Napster, so I will still find a use for it.
ian.
Re:Theft vs. Copying (Score:1)
Re:Not very surprising (Score:2)
I do download *SOME* live MP3's, but not for the purpose of recording to CD.
Re:Not very surprising (Score:2)
I'm so glad I don't care about mainstream artists. (Score:2)
Courtney love complained that napster was full oof techno, well - now it's going to get ever more full as the RIAA doesn't care about these short run vinyl pressings.
Re:I've noticed no drop. (Score:1)
How about ROT-13ster (Score:1)
Re:Where do you think they're going? (Score:1)
Many users, like my dad, think it's just too much trouble to continue on with it, and have tossed in the towel. Others, like my sister and secretary, have this mistaken impression that they'll get caught now that the RIAA has started filtering (the secretary actually told me that she heard a radio station talking about how the RIAA was gathering IP's off of Gnutella to start prosecuting end users).
The RIAA has won in the fact that trading MP3's will no longer be considered "mainstream". It'll continue on, much like the warez scene, but it'll be viewed as "underground" from now on. That alone will scare 90% of the population away from it.
Napster and users signed its own death warrant (Score:1)
Remember that Napster usage increased sales of CDs. The RIAA was able to use all this extra money into a promotional campaign to destroy the credibility of Napster and its users. They could also use this money on lobbying the government. They could point to the rampant "Ooooh, non-free stuff for free -- gimme!" attitude that was starting to take hold among a lot of people, and being so unattractive, this gave the RIAA a pretty solid moral ground compared to their adversaries when it comes to future rights battles.
So, I'm sure that the RIAA would like to plant a big wet one on Napster and its users for, (1) increasing its income through greater CD sales, (2) ensuring that future laws will be favorable to RIAA's terms whenever they decide to get into the online game. I gotta give 'em credit, the plan was fuckin' beautiful.
Cheers,
Re:Napster and users signed its own death warrant (Score:1)
Hey, I'm just going by what Napster supporters say all the time.
Cheers,
Re:ask a typical user (Score:1)
Try as I might, I just can't bring myself to care what these people think. Anyone that dumb deserves whatever they get.
Re:ask a typical user (Score:1)
Thanks, I try. :^)
stupid people deserve nothing?
No, they deserve whatever they get. More specifically, if their concept of reality is so completely determined by what they here on the the TV that they don't even think to look for themselves, then I don't feel any motivation to point out the obvious to them. If Ted Koppel told you that your car had been stolen, would you go out and buy a new one without checking your driveway first?
Where stupid is defined as something I would never be.
Hopefully.
Re:ask a typical user (Score:1)
Do you really think an abused child is in any way analogous to the topic at hand? Or are you just trolling with inflammatory analogies? Perhaps you will compare me to Hitler next?
Re:ask a typical user (Score:1)
So you are arguing that the Napster user in this scenario is not in control of his/her own actions?
Hitler spoke better german than you.
lol! :^)
Re:WinMX! (Score:1)
ask a typical user (Score:3)
all of my friends are novice napsterbaters at best, and they never even try to sign on anymore, since the press keeps telling them on the evening news that napster is dead. lost its court case. defunct. deceased.
it's along the same lines as those people i talked to about buying a computer about 5 years ago who said that Apple had gone out of business and that i couldn't buy a mac anymore.
like everybody else is saying here, napster's still there, and you can still get anything you want, and, in my estimation, it's faster: no more queueing up to get on a server, the serious users are still there (like me) and the fat pipes are still flowing.
Hmmm... that's strange. (Score:1)
On Wed. I pulled down a whole album that I was looking for. So, whatever Wired or the rest of the media is saying... I don't seem to have any trouble finding what I want. Maybe all the Eminem and Christina Aguellera songs are gone... but the obscure shit that I listen to is easy to find.
Re:Death by 1000 cuts (Score:1)
All told, I'll stick to Usenet for a big reason: I already have most of the stuff I know I like, since I bought it before MP3s came along (and any newer stuff I know I'll like I buy the CD anyways)
Usenet is far, far, better at introducing people to music they've never heard of, because you never know from day to day what's going to be posted.
I have NEVER bought Napster's arguments that they can be used to distribute unknown artists, because Napster's biggest draw is a search feature.
After being on Usenet, I've gotten to know some of the regulars, and some of them are constantly posting weird shit that very few people have ever heard of! And that's why it's so damn brilliant.
On top of that, people often post uber-rare out of print stuff, often from records, that are NEVER going to see the light of day thanks to the record companies.
Pope
Freedom is Slavery! Ignorance is Strength! Monopolies offer Choice!
Re:Where do you think they're going? (Score:2)
Orders to cease and desist doing what?
--
So you have to check 20 services.? (Score:1)
So in a way the RIAA has won.
MP3 swapping happened before napster and it will happen after this. Making it harder is a deturent
If it take 3 hours to hunt down 3 tracks is it worth it to those with too little time already?
Re:Napster and users signed its own death warrant (Score:2)
Correlation does not imply causation. And in fact, I'm not sure anyone has shown correlation.
Re:Buying CDs (Score:1)
1. All of Aerosmith's songs sound the same.
2. You're probably fat like me.
3. MusicMatch? ugh. Don't make me slap you silly. Using Lame under VBR (I know, not as good as their 256 cbr and -k) my tbird 927 does a full 45-50 mins rip in 30 mins. CBR would go faster.
Yay, EAC and Lame.
duh.
Re:Where do you think they're going? (Score:1)
The figure I've seen printed most often for Napter users is 65 million. That's a massive number of people. How many businesses have 65 million users/clients? Microsoft? Proctor & Gamble? I would be shocked if all of the Napster alternatives combined could get close to that number of users in the forseeable future.
-B
Re:LimeWire (Score:2)
I hope nobody is still using Gnutella 0.56? It's BAD for the network! Update to something new, please...
Ingenious New Name-Scrambling Scheme! (Score:2)
That's it! Just switch its and it's in all of your mp3 file names. The RIAA will never know what hit them!
Example: Well, Ms. Rosen, we did block the R.E.M. song "It's the End of the World As We Know It (And I Feel Fine)," but you can't honestly expect us to block "Its the End of the World as We Know It"
Also, try having fun with two, too, and to.
Cheers,
IT
Re:Where do you think they're going? (Score:3)
When they reported this on CNN, they had the Bearshare homepage on the screen in the back. And I think they even mentioned Limewire [limewire.com], which our linking AC overlooked. People aren't as dumb as you believe, they might not figure it out immediately, but it's not that difficult. Of course, then there's people like Martha Stewart, who was so amazed by a Real Player demonstration, she was paraphrased to have said, "Oh, that's neat. I'll bet one day you'll be able to find any type of music with a click of a button. Wonderful."
--
Re:Not very surprising (Score:1)
Just as a point of information, bootlegs and live recordings are just as covered by copyright as anything else that's traded on Napster. The fact that a work is created puts it under the copyright control of the creator, unless that right is reassigned. The difference here is that the RIAA isn't going after those types of recordings, because the record labels (who they represent) don't have the mechanical rights to those recordings like they would have for the songs recorded specifically for the labels.
Of course there are plenty of artists who would want to exercise their copyright on that kind of stuff to keep it out of circulation, even though the RIAA isn't behind their cause. The law is, but with distribution that easy, they'll never see that enforced.
-Aaron
Re:Theft vs. Copying (Score:2)
So do you demand to be let in to movies for free that aren't sold out? Hey, those empty seats aren't doing anything right? If the management won't let you in, hell just walk in through the fire exit.
The fact is, it's the movie cinema's call - not yours. Sure, you can try and argue you wouldn't pay to see the movie (but your still willing to walk to the cinema and sit through a couple of hours of this movie). But at the end of the day, it's not up to you. The cinema rightly views you a potential customer, and letting you in for free undermines their service to those who did pay.
Same with Napster. You'll search for a song, pay bandwidth charges to download it - yet claim you'd never buy it so who's losing anyway? Well I'm not convinced you wouldn't pay for that song - which is irrelevant in any case as the music label has exclusive rights to sell this song. You're undermining the people who did buy the CD - why should you get it for free when they paid for it? Hell, they may as well start downloading future releases too. Uh oh, you've started a trend that's reduced the future earnings of that artist.
Whether or not it's good for an artist to permit their songs to be traded on Napster (as some artists have) is up to them, not you. It's not something you can force on them because you've decided trading their songs "can't be theft". Your claims that the industry is making more money than ever and that Napster has opened your eyes to new artists are irrelevant - it's not your right to force what you think is best onto someone else (well, unless they're your child).
So you see, trading mp3s can't be theft, because nothing is missing.
Potential revenue is missing and the integrity of the artist and their material is compromised to those who did pay for it.
--
Re:Theft vs. Copying (Score:2)
Actually the RIAA, MPAA and every damn author, musician, commercial software developer, director, screen writer, actor, orator, song writer, graphic designer etc.
I don't see any distinction between "theft" and "copying" as particularly relevant at all. Theft is really an economic concept (although the bible espouses it as a moral one) - you're stealing wealth from another person, be it money, physical property or intellectual property. It's simply FUD to imply that "theft" is some kind of amoral, natural law and "copying" is an artificial construct of the RIAA and other nefarious organisations to make more money.
The fact is, there are many, many people whose careers would be undermined if everyone was legally allowed to copy their work. This copying deprives them of wealth either directly or in diminished future earnings. Where's the distinction?
All this post-facto argument is a contrived attempt to justify (and thereby keep alive) this admittedly addictive habit of downloading free music.
Give it up. Downloading illegal mp3s is not a natural progression of Freedom of Speech; it's not some noble crusade to make information free. It's theft.
--
Re:Theft vs. Copying (Score:2)
That's cool. I didn't mean to say that every artist doesn't permit copying. Rather, all (ok - most) artists want to have the discretion to choose whether their works are made available to be copied OR NOT. It's cool that you distribute your work for free, but you made this decision - it wasn't forced on you. That's the issue. Arguments that copying is not theft and therefore one should be free to abitrarily copy others work (or that it's legally wrong but morally right) are what I'm against.
Theft deprives someone of property directly. Copying does not (though it may, indirectly). There's plenty of reasonable arguments to be made about copying being bad, but none of them come down to analogies about stealing cars.
So what do you call it when I hack your bank and electronically transfer funds from your account to mine? I'm just moving numbers around - no theft of 'property' - I'm not saying it's "copying", just that it goes beyond the bounds of your convenient definition of theft. The stealing cars analogy is grossy over-simplifying the matter. That fact is, the more you look to define what theft is, the more blurry you'll find the distinction between theft and copying.
Let's talk in broader economic terms (note: we could talk in social or environmental on other areas of theft) and the distinction is even more diminished. At best, copying boils down to some sort of "take from the (information) rich, give to the (information) poor" Robin Hood approach.
I think the Free Software and Open Source movements are great - and I directly benefit from them. As do I benefit from artists such as yourself distributing free music and typefaces. I'm not against these things at all. What I am saying is that artists have the choice as to whether they distribute their works free or charge some amount of money for them (or a combination of the two) - we should respect this.
--
Re:LimeWire (Score:2)
Finally a Gnutella client that had most of my wishlists. It appears almost bug free too. When I run it for 3-4 days in a row, it might hang. IT also creates too many threads when left running for a long time. But the threads are idle.
I quit using Napster long back. I run LimeWire all the time on my computer and it accounts for a major chunk of traffic on my DSL.
If you haven't you should give this a try.
any one else can recommend anything similar??
LinuxLover
You frogot eDonkey (Score:2)
Distributed file sharing. Download from multiple people. Download from people downloading themselves.
FunOne
Re:Music City (Score:1)
--
Re:Napster (Score:1)
Boy, you really know how to copy and paste [wired.com], don't you? I mean, you must be some sort of elite ctrl+c ctrl+v freak.
--
What about WinMX? (Score:1)
You forgot UUCP. (Score:1)
Re:Death by 1000 cuts (Score:2)
The registry is "the thing that gets fixed when you click on this .reg file that lets you connect up with a new Napster ID".
Only a clueless newbie would click on a .reg file without inspecting its contents. But - the people who don't know what the registry is are precisely the people clueless enough to blindly do so in order to get back onto Napster.
So yeah, if all they did was nuke users, they would ultimately end up with a situation where all Joe Windoze knows (and to accomplish his task, all he needs to know) about "the registry" is that "it's what gets fixed by clicking on the 'i want my napster back' icon"...
yea, this filter was guaranteed to work (Score:1)
So now having to download and install a program is required at both ends for this to work? There's no chance this would have worked. As much as a people laughed at name filters as a solution to Napster, it's going to work, at least for the purposes of eliminating a majority of the available music.
But I'm sure Napster knew this, they're the ones who made the directory shared by default. right now they're trying to keep as much of their userbase as they can so that when they switch to a subscription service, their numbers are larger.
If they keep just 10% of their remaining users, it'll still probably be a profitable business.
how about this? (Score:1)
b.ritany s.pears
or something like
b.spears
c.aguilera
w.a.yankovic
Re:Not very surprising (Score:2)
Kinda odd what they are filtering- for example, most of my Pink Floyd and Bob Dylan was filtered while most of my CSNY, Neil Young, and 4 out of 6 of my Cake MP3's weren't.
Re:Napster (Score:1)
Re:Weird Al (Score:1)
Re:This is because. . . (Score:1)
Metaphysicist
Re:Not very surprising (Score:3)
"Webnoize, a 'digital intelligence' company that has been monitoring Napster usage for a while, reported on Thursday that the number of shared songs per Napster user had fallen 60 percent since Napster began filtering MP3s on Wednesday."
Metaphysicist
I think you missed what I was saying... (Score:1)
You sound like you haven't even looked at any of these alternatives -- check your information before posting. iMesh alone had more MP3's (number of terabytes) available than Napster ever did
But I am not talking about terabytes of data. I am talking about the pure number of users. It will take some time for the user base of the alternatives to reach the millions and millions of napster users. Napster was/is a Phenomenon. Will OpenNAP take the lead? Or iMesh? Will bearshare get a linux client? Who knows?
I know that this is not going away. For the next few months, however, it will be interesting to see what happens.
Sig:
Re:Where do you think they're going? (Score:2)
On the other hand, the RIAA is already making enemies in congress. Maybe something like this would cause all of their lobbying to backfire?
I really need to start adding tags to my posts like:
< tongue in cheek
potential discussion topic, don't flame me
*sigh*
Sig:
Re:Where do you think they're going? (Score:5)
You may be informed on the options, I may be informed, the average slashdot reader may be informed, but I guarantee you the average Napster user *IS*NOT*.
The success of napster was based on ease of use, its massive centrally located databases, and free advertizing because of the various media circuses it caused. There was a massive jump after the Metallica verdict, before then it was an underground program being passed by word of mouth in tech communities and college campuses.
These other initiatives may be gaining some users, but it will be months before their combined user base is as large as napster's. It'll be a real natural selection process over the next few months as the ones that suck lose members to the ones that rock, and the ones that rock get cease and decsist orders as a result.
Personally, I'm waiting for some country with a fat pipe and poor US relations, say China, to run some OpenNAP servers in order to stick it to the Evil Monopolistic Capitalistic Amercian Corporation (tm). Then we'll all really find out how powerfull the RIAA lobby is.
Sig:
Re:Theft vs. Copying (Score:1)
Sorry for rambling
Crow
Re:ask a typical user (Score:1)
ASK A TYPICAL NAPSTER USER
Dear Typical Napster User,
My father wants me to attend the local vo-tech school for fibre optics training. I would rather go to the state college, but it's more expensive. My grades in high school were pretty good, though nobody is mailing me scholarship offers. Dad is willing to pay for the vo-tech and said he is not going to give me any $ if I choose college over vo-tech. I have to choose soon. Can you help me change his mind?
Thanks in advance,
SoonToBeSchoolboy
....
Dear STBS,
dude! i just got the latest N'SYNC song just now, and it ROCKS!! it's awesome! and i didn't have to even pay no $ for it! yeah it gots some skips in it and cuts off 8 seconds before the end, but i LOVE that band! and even though i spent 3 hrs dl'ing it through my 56k modem, it was worth every minute! i'm currently downloading 83 other songs, from 4 other users. woo hoo! i never have to pay for my music again! napster OWNZ! screw the RIAA! ME11A11CA is a bunch of crybabies!
Typical Napster User
Re:Not very surprising (Score:2)
If Napster is publicizing who/what is blocked, I didn't see it. But right now, it seems that they're not blocking much at all.
Re:Where do you think they're going? (Score:2)
-----------------------
Still works for me... (Score:1)
Anyway, I still found all the tracks I searched for on the official Napster server, with practically no name mangling. Perhaps I'm lucky and was looking for stuff that hasn't hit the filter lists yet, (or my tastes in music just won't make the lists at all), but I didn't seem to see a big degredation in music available. I guess we'll see how things compare in a week or so.
CuteMX is gone. (Score:2)
CuteMX is gone. (Score:3)
Re:Music City (Score:1)
OpenNap sites, thats where the users went. I went there months ago.
/. Response Time (Score:1)
Oh yeah, this is supposed to be about Napster. Napster is pretty cool. It will never go away, the source is already out there.
Linux is cool, too. So is Linus. And RMS.
Re:/. Response Time (Score:2)
completely off topic... (Score:2)
... but seriously, Rachel Auburn? give me a break. that new label of hers, "RA," puts out the worse circus house crap around. it's kind of cute at first, but it gets very annoying, especially if you're exposed to an entire set of that bouncy nonsense. if you want some decent UK Hard House, there are better alternatives. HardNRG.com [hardnrg.com] and Energy UK [energyuk.net]. i'm not sure if you spin yourself, but those two are good places to start for the non-dj.
...of course, some people like Rachel Auburn. but there's no accounting for taste! :) at any rate, it's better than the RIAA shlop that's been removed from Napster. i'm all for it: now it's even easier to find the good stuff! a quick search brings up 97 copies of my CDs :).
- j
Re:Where do you think they're going? (Score:3)
I think that would backfire. The RIAA could then wrap themselves in the flag and rally public support for "showing those damn communists who they shouldn't be messing with." The RIAA would be able to ram through congress whatever [even] screwy [-y ier] law they wanted.
Re:Where do you think they're going? (Score:1)
That's what I would have guessed too, initially, but MusicCity has three times more users than I ever saw on Napster.
Stunned (Score:2)
Re:Theft vs. Copying (Score:2)
Perhaps you can make a utility argument based on the reduced *incentive* to create (I don't buy that either, but many people do, and it is reasonable). But once works are created, I can't believe any argument which says that society benefits from having to pay to duplicate it.
Anyway, my original point was not a defense of copying. I am just trying to keep the ideas of "theft" and "copying" separate so that we can engage in a discussion which is less confused by bad terminology.
Re:Theft vs. Copying (Score:2)
Every author, musician, software developer...? No, certainly not every one. There are lots of people who give away their work for free, and lots who permit you to copy it. I'm serious, some people do not think the way you do. Linux and a lot of the software that goes with permits copying explicitly. I'd like to think of myself as a graphic designer and musician, and my fonts [tom7.com] and music [mp3s.com] are free, and I permit copying. I'm sure we can find significant examples for your other categories. This is not an obvious point.
As for the "copying is moral" argument, I don't expect to win over many people with just slashdot posts. Morals are more complicated than that. However, I believe the distinction between theft and copying is real, and that you are just plain wrong to claim they are the same. Theft deprives someone of property directly. Copying does not (though it may, indirectly). There's plenty of reasonable arguments to be made about copying being bad, but none of them come down to analogies about stealing cars.
Theft vs. Copying (Score:5)
The RIAA and others want you to fall into the mind trap that copying IS theft, since practically everyone believes that traditional theft is immoral. In order to make sound judgments about these issues, we need to clearly separate the two concepts.
Music City (Score:5)
I've noticed no drop. (Score:3)
Perhaps this is just a ploy by Napster to throw off the RIAA. Because Napster is implementing all of these blocks on its own servers - the Napster network - people are flocking to the other networks. Hmm, imagine that. Perhaps I should keep my mouth shut about this before the whole world finds out, then.
Look to the Simpsons (Score:3)
Only A Matter Of Time (Score:2)
It's just a matter of time before someone figures out an easy workaround to the naming/renaming scheme, then Napster will be right back up where it was before. In the meantime, there is always Aimster [aimster.com].
Re:SSL based P2P file sharing apps? (Score:2)
--
SSL based P2P file sharing apps? (Score:2)
1. Small networks, like in my house, where no one computer is bigger than the others, peer to peer would be handy. I could share files with JUST my friends on the net if I could add a little client side authentication, and still protect from prying eyes.
2. For general, non-client authenticated peers, the FBI would have a harder time finding pr0n, the RIAA would have a harder time finding m34talica... etc.
It's the sysadmin in me wantin' to know.
Lots of great music there (Score:2)
Yeah; people are trading cool music that the RIAA doesn't own (or at least didn't put on their list). Napster is better than ever. It's faster, and its easier to find rare stuff by known artists since all their proprietary stuff isn't in the way. By looking at other people's files based on common interests you can discover new bands. Why do people always assume "piracy" is the only thing p2p tech is good for? Just because that's what the RIAA says?
As long as the RIAA attack on p2p remains at the level of filtering I think Napster - at least the spirit of Napster not Napster Inc./Bertelsmann - wins. Sure it's harder to trade copyrighted stuff but that is technically illegal and they have the legal muscle to enforce the law - so let them waste their money doing so. (Besides, that stuff is easy to find in stores anyway!)
If filtering Napster makes them happy I am not complaining. The real fear is that they will limit the functionality of the internet. This is a radical new distribution mechanism and in the long run it is better for musicians even though it may not be better for the music industry as it currently exists.
roll call! (Score:2)
--
scour (Score:3)
That's because Scour went under, and it's assetts were bought out.
The company that has owns it has a website here [centerspan.com]. They have not relaunched yet. but they are talking about it.
Re:Not very surprising (Score:2)
I'd really like to believe that.. however I'm pretty confident that the 35% are mispellings and artists too obscure for the RIAA to care for.. maybe 5% unregulated music.
Tyrannoctonus
Re:Theft vs. Copying (Score:2)
Actually it is in most cases. The thing with theft is that a material thing is gone. If you have a car and I steal it, you can no longer use that car. You have a loss. Likewise, if I steal a car from the dealership, they have lost a car (which usually will be covered by some insurance but there is a loss of money down the line due to the loss of a material posession.) In the case of trading copyrighted music, income is not necessarily lost. That is why this is a gray area. If I download an mp3 of the latest Britney Spears song so I can listen to it a few times, I would do so without ever intending to buy the CD. I don't like her music, and if for some reason I wanted to hear one of her songs I would not want to pay for it. Likewise, many people prefer to spend money on something other than music. If they answer the question, "If the only way to hear it required you to buy the CD, would you do so?" with "Yes" then the RIAA might be able to complain. However, I would think in most cases people would say no. They wouldn't buy the music, therefore the CD's would sit on the shelf waiting to be sold just like they would with mp3s.
Also there is the fact that the music industry is making more money than ever. While I am too lazy to go look up the statistics (there's been stories on this site about it if you want to look) I also am aware of the ancedotal evidence. The other day I bought a CD from the Enanitos Verdes, a group from Argentina. I would have never known about them or that I liked their music if it wasn't for Napster. I heard about them from a friend, was curious, then downloaded a few songs. The music interested me and so I purchased the CD. I have done things like this many times, and know of others that have as well. It's a pretty common way for hearing music that isn't what they play on the radio.
So you see, trading mp3s can't be theft, because nothing is missing. And, if they weren't complete idiots, the RIAA would see that things like Napster could help them make more money. At the least, they should have joined up with them and took advantage of the greatest marketing scheme ever. Imagine if they had the ability to see what music was most popular by electronically surveying their customers that way. The database logs of Napster would have been golden to the RIAA, but they threw it away.
As of writing this... (Score:2)
Clients Gigs
Napster 6830 1926
OpenNap 28320 33009
What can I say?
Re:Not very surprising (Score:5)
No amount of filters/lawsuits will stop the 31337 underground. I don't agree with them - but I feel a bit sorry for the RIAA - trying to take on the 31337 underground. They obviously don't know who they're messing with. These guys are the mafia of the internet. So get their ISPs to ban them, I hear you say. Sure, but when that was tried with one of the 31337 leaders, the 31337 group took out the ISP - DDoSed it to death. If they can't do that they'll attack the upstream.
They have literally thousands of automated vulnerability programs searching for open servers to build new platforms to attack again. You can't stop them - they are the 31337 underground. I know, I've tried to stop them. It's not their abilities (well, in most cases at least) but their sheer numbers that make them impossible to defeat. Also, they are not centralized, so law-based methods won't help - they are in Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland, UK, USA, Canada, Germany, France, Russia, South Africa, Zimbabwe, Nigeria, Australia, New Zealand, Thailand, Japan, Hong Kong, Brazil, Argentina, Peru, Mexico...yet they all speak a common language - "31337 h4x0r 5p34k."Their average conversation is this:
- y0...- wh4t n3w sh1t y0 g0tz?
- k00l sh1t- FTPx0r d4 1nf0...
Yes, you definitely don't know what you're messing with. I don't agree with what they're doing either, but trust me - there is no way to stop them. They are the 31337 - Elite in the 31337 speak....and that they are, Elite 31337 h4x0rs on the information superhighway...A long term strategy to deal with them must be formulated - that I'll grant you. Because if they aren't stopped eventually, 31337 5p34k will be the world's official language. These guys make other terrorist groups look like the tooth fairy for one reason - all other dictators so far have done their work through military force - therefore they could be combatted with military force....but the new era will see increasingly complicated telecommunications systems taking over functions of the very human world. And the 31337 will control that, unless we formulate a plan to stop them within the next 5 years.
There is one man that needs to be targetted - the Dark Lord of the Internet, a 31337 h4x0r known as "Goatboy25". A 25-year old 31337 h4x0r who is the New Dark Lord. These are dangerous times on the Internet.Dangerous times on the Internet indeed.
Recipe for Popularity (Score:3)
----------------------
Death by 1000 cuts (Score:2)
Banning users wasn't going to shut Napster down because a banned user could fix their Windows registry and signon with a new ID. The IDs also required no verification.
Screening the shared files for copyrighted material and automatically not sharing them is a killer though. Nobody is going to bother with rediculous naming schemes to share their content - there are easier things to do. (Like BearShare, or other Gnutella clients.)
My take on it? Gnutella all the way. Now if it were just a bit more usable.
Napster would have been a great service if the quality of the MP3s was limited to 96kbps or 112kbps. Something that is similar to broadcast radio quality, but not CD quality. Then people could have continued to sample and enjoy new music, while having an incentive to go buy the real thing if they wanted a higher quality version. Just like we have today with radio. Too bad the recording industry has cut off their nose to spite their face.
Re:this won't kill mp3s though (Score:2)
I'm not saying that copyright violation is not wrong, I'm just saying that copyright violation is not the same as theft. Record and software (media ?) companies would like you to equate copyright violation with theft, but they're not the same...
I agree with the parent post, because of Napster I have discovered a lot of new music. I intend to buy every single cd once I graduate and start making some decent money.
this won't kill mp3s though (Score:5)
It's the mainstreamers that purchase albums like britney spears, n'sync, aguiliera, etc...but because they only listen to the albums for a few months until the trend changes, they feel no loyalty to the band, and have no reason to purchase the cd.
the people who have been using mp3s since way before napster, have other means of getting them: ftps, irc, and private forums immediately come to mind. and ftp can NOT be stopped unless the whole protocol is banned (won't happen) Us, on the other hand, do purchase cds even after downloading mp3s. Yes, I have about a hundred mp3 cds that I didn't buy. But I've also bought well over a hundred cds because of mp3s that I first downloaded.
No I don't condone downloading mp3s, and yes, it is theft. But economically, me downloading mp3s is making them more money than if i wasn't.
and napster's death isn't going to stop me or millions of other music lovers. as i said, there's other ways that are faster, more efficient, and more reliable.
I still use it (Score:2)
"Homo sum: humani nil a me alienum puto"
(I am a man: nothing human is alien to me)
is this really 60% down from normal traffic? (Score:3)
I wish I could see a plot of the traffic on Napster over the last year or so. Does anyone know if there's a chart anywhere?
I bet the 60% drop is from the recent peak when people thought Napster was going to be shut down. Or maybe they are just saying 60% fewer files are being shared? Well duh if they are filtering them.
I tried searching for stuff like Eminem and Britney last night and it was all still there. A few spelling variations but not hard to find. In fact if I didn't know anything about the court battles I wouldn't even have noticed much.
Re:Only A Matter Of Time (Score:2)
Search for something a little less esoteric and not on the charts, but something that the RIAA should be banning if they're trying to stay on top of things. Tracks from Phil Collins's 'No Jacket Required'.
Hmmm... A full 100 item listing of Phil Collins tracks.
Scary.... You'd think the RIAA would be doing something to stop this travesty!
My Grandma Loves Apster-Nay (Score:2)
The bottom line is that this will only slow down song swapping, but now that people have seen what technology can do for their songlists, no one will ever go back to only buying CDs.
=-=-=-=-=
The real shame of it all... (Score:5)
Hell, it's not even making them any money.
Let's face it, the average music listener is busy listening to Brittany or N'Sync, and the only reason for downloading that crap is that your folks aren't paying you enough allowance to buy the CD.
What I loved about Napster was the stuff that is copywrited, yet not for sale. Rare tracks, bootlegs, unreleased cuts, out of print EPs... that is the stuff dreams are made of.
The labels aren't going to burn a CD and print a jewel case up so that they can sell you your "I had it but a friend borrowed it and never gave it back so now it's out of print and I can't get it *sob*" music.
But, they could have allied with Napster to provide work that they no longer sell to to audiophiles and hard core fans. Let's face it, if the RIAA made any money off of such a partnership, it would be more than they are making now. I would have paid for the Marilyn Manson and Nine Inch Nails cover of Down in the Park, but it's not for sale.
Not to mention that it would have been an example, something for related industries to emulate. Ever tried to find an out of print book? Wouldn't it be nice if you could download it (even for a small fee), rather than scour used book stores, estate sales, flea markets, etc.?
The labels really fucked up a golden opportunity. For shame.
Not very surprising (Score:5)
I see two possible causes for this, first, the filter may be ineffective, and copyrighted works may still be being traded.
Second, the RIAA greatly underestimated the number of legitimate downloads going through the network, or fudged the figures a bit to improve their position during the trial. Maybe 40% of Napster's users really *do* use the service to trade bootlegs, live recordings, and other unregulated music.
Napster (Score:2)
They are leaving.... but where are they going? (Score:2)
people ARE leaving napster.... find out *where* they are going at NAPanon [13kingdoms.com], a support group for homeless Napster users!
Re:Where do you think they're going? (Score:2)