Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
News

[Napster] 11 - End of the Road.mp3 137

Posted by CmdrTaco from the wiping-a-single-tear-from-my-cheak dept.
psoriac writes "Looks like the long sad saga of Napster is drawing to a final close; after being shut down by the courts, losing its execs, filing for chapter 11, and having its sale to Bertelsmann AG blocked, the remaining physical assets of Napster are being sold at auction by Dovebid. The auction site is close to my house; I think I'll stop by and pick up some memorabilia."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

[Napster] 11 - End of the Road.mp3 More

[Napster] 11 - End of the Road.mp3

Comments Filter:

  • Dovebid (Score:3, Interesting)

    by GigsVT ( 208848 ) on Sunday November 24, 2002 @10:27AM (#4742908) Journal
    Did anyone buy any of the Enron stuff from Dovebid when that went down a while back?

    The main thing that discouraged me, other than lack of money, was the insanely high minimum proxy bid. Most of the stuff wasn't worth that much.

    It was also confusing the way they listed a lot of identical items seperately, and then also had "lots" but apparently the minimum bid was still something like $250 for each item in the lot, not the lot as a whole.

    • Re:Dovebid (Score:5, Informative)

      by junkgoof ( 607894 ) on Sunday November 24, 2002 @10:40AM (#4742957)
      My experience with end-of-company auctions is that furniture is cheap, but anything with a power supply goes for more than it is worth. Resellers bid until the price is reasonable, and they take the lot if they get it. People who don't know what hardware is worth get carried away and bid more than they could buy the stuff for new. Doesn't apply to high-end hardware (Sun boxen go relatively cheap), but only high-end stuff goes cheap. Sun workstation, expensive, Sun tape robot, massive storage system, or massive server, cheap relative to real price (who has $20 000 to bid, other than resellers?).

      • Re:Dovebid (Score:2, Interesting)

        by GigsVT ( 208848 )
        I sorta got that impression from their FAQ that said something like "If you are looking to get something for a lot less than it's worth, don't waste your time and ours."

        Most of my experience is with storage unit auctions, I really get into those when I have some extra cash.

        It seems the opposite is true there, anything with a power supply goes for pennies on the dollar, but furniture and hard goods get bid up a little high, especially if they look like real wood and not that pressboard junk.

        That's for the ones where they actually unload the unit before bidding and let you bid on lots they make up on the spot, which is exceptional, but my favorite kind. Most unit auctions are blind, you just get to stick your head in the unit, then they start the bidding.

        Different class of bidders of course, I've seen people at storage unit auctions that I have a hard time believing they even have a house capable of containing the amount of junk they buy. :)

        I even saw people bid up a unit full of dirty old matresses once. That was about the most hilarious thing. I bet the previous owner of the unit just saw it as a cheap way to dispose of the things, since the landfill makes you pay to get rid of that kind of stuff, and charities won't touch those.


    • > Did anyone buy any of the Enron stuff from Dovebid when that went down a while back? The main thing that discouraged me, other than lack of money, was the insanely high minimum proxy bid. Most of the stuff wasn't worth that much.

      For some reason I find it unsurprising that Enron's stuff was overvaluated.

    • not only that but dovebid add's another 15% on top of it to the bidder..

      that is a fricking crock... the cost of the biddind shoudl come out of the sellers not the bidders...

      dovebid = ebay with added ripoff features.

      Besides all that equipment is horribly out-of-date now. and unfortunately.. it will go for way higher than it is worth.. (workstation? not more than $200.00 with monitor and keyboard... I DONT care what it is... this is a liquidation auction.)
      • Yes, you're right, all the cost should come out of Napster's pocket... oh wait, that's right, they don't have any money left! But I'm sure Dovebid would be willing to do the right thing and wait for their share of the final settlement.
    • Dammit, EVERY startup from those times had a full regiment of Aeron chairs.

      So, why don't they show in the auction ?

  • Featured Items - nice! (Score:4, Informative)

    by eastbam ( 610415 ) on Sunday November 24, 2002 @10:28AM (#4742913)
    Cisco Systems Switches, Routers and Firewalls
    Sun Microsystems
    VA Linux Servers
    Network Appliance Servers
    EMC
    Dell Servers and More!!
    Desktop and Notebook Computers By Apple, Dell, Hewlett-Packard and Others!!
    Monitors
    Printers and Faxes By Hewlett-Packard, Canon, Brother and Others!
    Hundreds Of Napster Logo'd Shirts, Hats, Jackets and More!!

  • Looks like the long sad saga of Napster

    Bout time that thing died, then again I thought it was long gone already. Oh well, I hear the new LOTR movie is on Kazaa *scurries away*.
    • Napster the network, the service, that is. I'm connected to 11 Napster networks at this moment, thanks to the excellent Linux lopster client.

      Yes, Napster *Inc*'s Napster servers no longer exist. A large number of independent servers have sprung up, however, mostly overseas where the RIAA can't get at them (particularly, for some reason, Italy). The content available is not as comprehensive as it was in Napster's heyday, but if you're looking for a piece of music, it's likely still available.
  • that no matter how hard they try to make an example of one particular program that it just breeds the media hype and another 100 similar programs appear?

    P2P is here to stay, and it will just continue to get better for those who use them, and worse for those who oppose them.

  • Really too bad... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Silas ( 35023 ) on Sunday November 24, 2002 @10:32AM (#4742921) Homepage
    It's really to bad that things ended this way. I'd suggested [summersault.com] back in April '01 that they call it quits on their own before The Gub'ment made everything so difficult. Excerpt: Some things change our lives so significantly that they deserve better than to be trampled out of existence by the changing face of subtle bureaucratic oppression.

    A bit dramatic perhaps, but I continue to think that they should have gone out with their proverbial heads held high, instead of after this miserable sequence of events...


    • > Excerpt: Some things change our lives so significantly that they deserve better than to be trampled out of existence by the changing face of subtle bureaucratic oppression. A bit dramatic perhaps...

      Not IMO. I think this is sad because Napster was the most innovative use of the internet since the WWW came along. And notably, it started out as a garage app rather than as the effort of some big software machine. In the IP age it's the big businesses who are breaking up the machines that scare them [wikipedia.org].

    • I have no sympathy for Napster. The product was innovative, the business plan was crap. It was just another friggin' dotcom that got too arrogant and fucked up, and I'm amazed that Slashdot readers have so much sympathy for it. Think about it, people: their entire existence as a corporation was built on trading other companies' IP freely over the Internet. They were going to make money off music piracy. They weren't a p2p network, so they didn't even have the excuse of not controlling their users. There may have been legitimate uses of Napster, but those weren't going to ever keep the VCs happy. Sorry, they deserved to burn, and get replaced by something better and less oriented towards IP violations.

      This is not the same as the RIAA going after colleges or the Rio makers, or the MPAA and DeCSS, or all the TV networks and SonicBlue. This is like going after the people burning VCDs of Harry Potter over in East Asia.
      • Sorry, they deserved to burn, and get replaced by something better and less oriented towards IP violations.

        Saying that Napster was "oriented" towards IP violations is like saying the Internet as a whole is oriented towards distributing child porn. How technology is used is different from how it ought to be used, and one must distinguish between the two when discussing the merits of using technology at all.

        • Well, gee. That's a whole lot of fancy words.

          Are you going to make the ludicrous claim that the Napster business plan expected the business to thrive based on people exchanging home recordings and legal MP3 files??
          • I'm not making any claims about the details or the legitimacy of their business plan. With most issues like this, there are enough gray areas that it would be difficult to debate the merits without resorting to baseless speculation. I just wanted to point out that Napster's particular chronology doesn't have to be the fate of all P2P file sharing technologies, if we can correctly distinguish between the purpose of a given technology, and how it's actually used.
            • I agree that P2P technologies don't have to meet the same fate. This doesn't contradict my point at all though- Napster's success was based on illegal file sharing. That's what made them so popular, which in turn brought in the VCs. Not the "promise of the Internet" or any such garbage. When legal file sharing is more popular than illegal file sharing on the major P2P networks, you may resume whining about the sad fate of Napster.

    • Re:Really too bad... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by octalgirl ( 580949 ) on Sunday November 24, 2002 @12:29PM (#4743385) Journal
      Some things change our lives so significantly that they deserve better than to be trampled out of existence by the changing face of subtle bureaucratic oppression.

      Agreed. To me there are only 3 major breakthroughs in personal computing technology (and Windows isn't one of them). They are Netscape - literally changed the world (doesn't matter that Mosaic came first, Netscape is the one that did it), Doom - literally exploded first person, multi-user gaming and is the foundation of a multi-billion dollar industry, and Napster who completely 'rocked' the world of content connected computing (CCC - did I just make that up?). If you look back at Doom, how grainy the graphics, limited function etc, and compare to today's spectacular graphics, ability to swim, side step, etc. Netscape and the first web pages - grey, simple, one font, no indents or bullets. Now we have interactive pages, e-commerce, etc. Napster never got to become what it could have been. Just like early explorers confronting something with teeth, the **AA shot it dead before finding out if it was friend or foe.

  • Hrmm (Score:5, Funny)

    by acehole ( 174372 ) on Sunday November 24, 2002 @10:35AM (#4742933) Homepage
    I wonder if Metallica will sign any of the memorabilia ;)

    • Right, these would be the same lads who haven't put out a new album in how many years? Napster had a victory, pyrrhic though it may be, since it seems Lars and the boys aren't doing anything now.... (okay, except rehab)

      Kierthos

    • Re:Hrmm (Score:4, Funny)

      by dr_dank ( 472072 ) on Sunday November 24, 2002 @01:43PM (#4743752) Homepage Journal
      No chance of that. The band had to sell their pens just to make ends meet, thanks to piracy. They had some markers awhile back, but they used them up making signs that said: "Will rock out for food".

  • not a big deal (Score:4, Insightful)

    by jacquesm ( 154384 ) <j@nOSPam.ww.com> on Sunday November 24, 2002 @10:39AM (#4742954) Homepage
    You should look at this like the demise of Hispano-Suiza, they were fine cars in their time but when they passed it was not quite the end of personal mobility.

    And Napster won't be the last peer to peer technique that goes under, but one of these days we'll cobble something together that is *really* beyond shutdown. The only major problem so far seems to be that for the creator of that piece of software there will be no income to be made (he/she can't control access to it either).

    Maybe freenet will be the one, maybe not.

    But that is just one aspect of the technological war, the other one is that even a perfect peer to peer protocol / search engine is still vulnerable to all kinds of attacks by those with enough money (such as RIAA) or those with enough time on their hands (like the sicko's that try to destroy IRC) and that will probably be the next frontier,
    to maintain data integrity, and to be able to search and destroy bogus clients and their malicious payloads without centralised control.

  • Bah (Score:3, Insightful)

    by iomega ( 470848 ) on Sunday November 24, 2002 @10:42AM (#4742968)
    i made do before, during and after napster,

    there was always a way to get music, and there always will be.

    one strange thing is, i dont remember such horrible queing in napster, like there is in kazaa, the wait rivals that of certain extremely busy irc channels.,

    • Re:Bah (Score:1)

      by Molt ( 116343 )
      I'd guess a lot of the reason why Kazaa has more queuing is it serves more varied data than MP3s.. get in line behind a few guys downloading an entire film and be ready for a significant wait. Generally if it's coming off a machine which only does MP3s it seems fine.
    • PArt of the reason that you may be queued is that your participation rate is low. Try the new Kazaalite 2.0 if you haven't yet. In my opinion, it's a huge step forward in P2P.
    • such as going to the mall and buying cds?

  • I wonder if there is Data in tha HDs (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 24, 2002 @10:43AM (#4742970)
    I wonder if there are mp3s left in the hard disks?

  • In other news... (Score:4, Funny)

    by ActiveSX ( 301342 ) on Sunday November 24, 2002 @10:43AM (#4742971) Homepage
    from the wiping-a-single-tear-from-my-cheak dept.

    Taco still can't spell. Perhaps there's going to be a spell checker up at auction. We can only hope.
    • And what is your popular website's name, Mr. Dictionary?

      -Kevin

      • TheMacMind [themacmind.com]

        Except:
        1. It's not that popular
        2. It's not much of a web site either
        3. Oh hell, these retarded teenagers spell worse than Taco and Co.

        Alright, I'll shut up now.
        • Actually that looks like a nice news site to me

          I don't even have a site so what do I know? I'm a pothole on the information superhighway. I do know that Slashdot has been propagating bad spelling and grammar for years. Don't even get me started on its/it's and their/there/they're. It's not that difficult, people!

          -Kevin

  • I use http://lopster.sourceforge.net/ with Napigator servers.

  • We can sleep better now (Score:5, Funny)

    by Lxy ( 80823 ) on Sunday November 24, 2002 @10:47AM (#4742985) Journal
    Knowing that the RIAA has put an end to piracy. No more downloading MP3s for us, we have to go buy our music.
  • I would buy these, and sell them to people as webservers that can take even the worst slashdotting... we know that these machines were able to take the loads placed on them when they worked for Napster!!!

    Yes, I know it's offtopic, but I'm trying to be funny on a Sunday morning... cut me some slack

    RickTheWizKid
  • * All items will be sold at public auction on the date(s) specified above. You can bid via webcast or by attending the auction in person. If you CANNOT ATTEND the auction, you may place a proxy bid prior to the sale. Webcast bidding requires 1) a unique bidder number for each auction and 3) an open telephone connection with a touchtone phone. To begin, click the registration link to the right. Click here for additional help.

    Good thing there's no step 2. I HATE second steps.
    • Actually they forgot 2 and 4.

      (don't say it)

      2) ???

      (I said don't say it)

      4) Profit!

      (Great, he said it. Mod his ass DOWN!)
      • No, there is no step 4. A sale of Napster equipment requiring 'Profit!' would be like a sale of CueCat stuff requiring 'Morals!'.


    • > > Webcast bidding requires 1) a unique bidder number for each auction and 3) an open telephone connection with a touchtone phone.

      > Good thing there's no step 2. I HATE second steps.

      They left it out on purpose, as a memorial to Napster:

      2) profit

  • And we should be sorry... why? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by IIRCAFAIKIANAL ( 572786 ) on Sunday November 24, 2002 @10:54AM (#4743006) Journal
    Yes, I hate the RIAA and it's ilk. Yes, I hate the way they have dragged their feet with online options. I hate the way they have been pushing copy-protected cd's and I hate the industry in general. I hope it does die and a bunch of smaller labels rise from the ashes - ones that don't buy the souls of the artists that help make them money.

    But that doesn't excuse Napster. They were a corporation, not an activist group - they made money by helping people violate copyright. Yes, I am aware that many people used Napster to trade non-copyrighted music - but for the most part, it was all the stuff that is being sold in stores right now (right then).

    And to those of you that think that we should be able to just violate copyright because we don't like the content controllers, well, then fuck the GPL, right? Let's just use someone elses work for profit there too!

    • Re:And we should be sorry... why? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by PaleBoy ( 564594 ) on Sunday November 24, 2002 @11:32AM (#4743105)

      There are a lot of reasons why stealing music is the preferred method for basically this whole upcoming generation.

      a)We are aware of actually how much money it takes to create a cd. We all have cd burners, and know how cheap the media is. Many of us even have friends that have their own hobbled-together studios, and can record their music in their basement. We know that we are getting totally and utterly ripped off if we buy a cd.

      b)We know that the artist will most likely hardly see a dime anyway. We've watched enough VH1 behind the music to know that even the most successful stars in the most popular music can wind up owing their record label money, unless they throw a tantrum and acquire a new contract. We know that the artists are getting ripped off, too.

      c)We know that we aren't actually taking something physical. We are copying an arrangement of bits in a file into a replication on our computer. There is no cost to the company. There is only the supposed lack of profit, which assumes that we would have paid for the album just to hear that one song we downloaded. We are aware that Radiohead "released" Kid A on Napster before it was in stores, and that people went out and made it a collossal best seller. It had no marketing campaign to speak of. The only marketing used was word of mouth from people who had downloaded it.We understand the difference between music downloading and theft, and we aren't afraid to pay for music worth paying for.

      d)We respect musicians. We don't really care if the day of super-millionaire pop-stars disappears. What we want to see is musicians with websites, where you can just pay them directly, per song, and support who you listen to, without the huge, outdated, corrupt, technophobic, greedy, bloated middleman that is the music industry. We will wait to support the artist, but we will not stop listening to music.

      • Geez guy, way to strawman me. I only said that we shouldn't feel sorry for Napster, a company that (arguably) made money by helping others violate copyright.

        a)We are aware of actually how much money it takes to create a cd. We all have cd burners, and know how cheap the media is. Many of us even have friends that have their own hobbled-together studios, and can record their music in their basement. We know that we are getting totally and utterly ripped off if we buy a cd.

        This is no different than the current garment industry. People pay premium for a swoosh on their track pants, some woman in indonesia gets screwed, and Phillip Knight laughs all the way to the bank. But nobody seems to give a shit. I find it hilarious that everyone here gets mad at the MPAA/RIAA when we have companies that are screwing millions just so we can have our coffee, our oil, and our Levi's.

        b)We know that the artist will most likely hardly see a dime anyway. We've watched enough VH1 behind the music to know that even the most successful stars in the most popular music can wind up owing their record label money, unless they throw a tantrum and acquire a new contract. We know that the artists are getting ripped off, too.

        Yes, that's why I hope big media dies. But it won't because nobody cares. Fuck, I don't care - compared to the injustice that other companies dish out it's small potatoes.

        c)We know that we aren't actually taking something physical. We are copying an arrangement of bits in a file into a replication on our computer. There is no cost to the company. There is only the supposed lack of profit, which assumes that we would have paid for the album just to hear that one song we downloaded. We are aware that Radiohead "released" Kid A on Napster before it was in stores, and that people went out and made it a collossal best seller. It had no marketing campaign to speak of. The only marketing used was word of mouth from people who had downloaded it.We understand the difference between music downloading and theft, and we aren't afraid to pay for music worth paying for.

        Nobody used the t word. I did not say anybody was stealing. I said they were violating copyright. Big difference, though a lot of people gloss over it. I didn't in my post. Incidently, if Radiohead released Kid A on napster, one could arguably say that the people downloading it were not violating copyright (that is, if Radiohead owns the copyrights to their music) - bad example. In any case, if the copyright holder says "do not distribute my content" you are violating copyright and are (arguably) a criminal - end of story, whether it ultimately helps them or not.

        d)We respect musicians. We don't really care if the day of super-millionaire pop-stars disappears. What we want to see is musicians with websites, where you can just pay them directly, per song, and support who you listen to, without the huge, outdated, corrupt, technophobic, greedy, bloated middleman that is the music industry. We will wait to support the artist, but we will not stop listening to music.

        That's essentially what I said. Seriously, did you even read my post?

        • well, I did not set out to strawman you, and I certainly appreciate the response. I have to admit, I got myself a little worked up there.

          This is no different than the current garment industry.

          I think I agree. I think the only place where they differ is that stealing shoes would be actual theft. Copying music is not. One is taking a physical object away from it's owner. The other is replicating a piece of information.

          Nobody used the t word. I did not say anybody was stealing. I said they were violating copyright.

          This is true. You did not say theft, and I apologize that my post took that leap in logic. However, my point was more that the whole concept of copyright is kinda not very solid.

          Your point about violating the GPL is very true. But I've always seen the GPL as sort of a workaround to the fact that information isn't acknowledged in it's very nature to be free. The GPL is kind of an enforced, viral freedom designed to work around the current system of information oppression.

      • We are aware of actually how much money it takes to create a cd

        This is more than a little misleading. You know how much it takes to burn a CD. You are ignoring the costs of production, marketing (we all hate it, but it's necessary to compete against others that market), and the fact that music is *not* fungible. When you want a CD, you don't want just any CD. You want a particular CD by a particular artist. IMHO, being "ripped off" happens when the other person misleads you about what you're getting. You *know* that you're paying a premium for a particular CD because you can only get it from one place. You aren't being "ripped off".

        We know that the artists are getting ripped off, too

        Sure, but you using it as a justification to pirate their music is laughable. You aren't going to do anything to drive the associated organizations out of business, you aren't sending a check to the author...you just want "free" music. Admit it.

        We know that we aren't actually taking somethign physical...There is no cost to the company.

        That is simply stupid. The entire concept of property is completely artifical anyway (remember the deals struck with the American Indians by settlers over land rights, which frequently the natives didn't comprehend?). To say that "intellectual property" or a potential customer has no value or legitimacy is just dumb.

        And if it's worth *downloading*, why isn't it worth *paying* for?

        We respect musicians

        You can send them a check now. Have you?

        • "You know how much it takes to burn a CD. You are ignoring the costs of production, marketing"

          Actually, I was trying to address that issue directly in my post, so let me restate it here. I know kids who have their own studios. Basement jobs with styrofoam sound proofing, going from their equipment straight into digital mixing. And you know what? It sounds fine. So production does not need to be the justification for whatever multiple of 100% markup they charge at Sam Goody.

          As for marketing, I specifically used Kid A as my example because the only real marketing they did WAS P2P sharing. I've gotten into several bands only because I found them through filesharing, and when they are bands that are self-publishing, I have bought their albums.

          "We know that the artists are getting ripped off, too

          Sure, but you using it as a justification to pirate their music is laughable. You aren't going to do anything to drive the associated organizations out of business, you aren't sending a check to the author...you just want "free" music. Admit it.

          No, I will not admit it. I stated it before, but I will restate it here. We will wait to support the artist, but we will not stop listening to music.

          "That is simply stupid. The entire concept of property is completely artifical anyway (remember the deals struck with the American Indians by settlers over land rights, which frequently the natives didn't comprehend?). To say that "intellectual property" or a potential customer has no value or legitimacy is just dumb."

          I feel like you are contradicting yourself here. You present a culture that didn't even believe in property owning, and then state that differing viewpoints copyright are "just dumb"?

          The point I was trying to make is that a lot of young people just don't agree with the concept of owning information. We both read Slashdot. Every day there are stupid patent pieces, innovation squashing lawsuits from Big business, and draconian new laws that limit our freedom just to protect our Big Media's "intellectual property". Can you really own an idea? I just don't know anymore.

          You can send them a check now. Have you?

          This one I just don't get. How can I send them a check? I am willing to wager that even if I could find the mailing addresses of the bands I listen to, that it is almost certainly illegal for me to directly compensate them, without paying their labels.

          • And you know what? [Basement studios] sounds fine

            I tend to think that many industries blow too much money (*cough* IT *cough* Sun) on overpriced services or hardware, but that doesn't mean that you can always just rip out the expensive studios and throw in a basement studio. I'm not a sound engineer...anyone here care to comment?

            only real marketing they did WAS P2P sharing

            But the fact that P2P sharing can generate sales doesn't mean that it can replace existing marketing. Using a little oomph and connections and some money to get reviews of your music tossed around or played is hard to compare to.

            You present a culture that didn't even believe in property owning, and then state that differing viewpoints copyright are "just dumb"

            I'm just pointing out that the claim "that nothing is being taken", doesn't really make a lot of sense as an argument. We feel that it's certainly wrong to steal products from a store, but who owns them, their invisible property nature, is artificial and comes from humans. Many proponents of IP elimination draw a picture of a huge gap between copyright infringement and taking posession of a physical object -- that the first isn't really wrong at all, but the second is. My complaint is that they're both (intellectual property and physical property) simply constructs we've built up because they're convenient and improve our lives. To point at one as inherently invalid is silly. The justification for using either is the same.

            it is almost certainly illegal to directly compensate them

            Yes, but so is just grabbing a copy of their music -- you do that. You don't have to say "Here's $15 for the album I didn't buy." If you simply send them a check that says "I'm a fan, here's a tip", there's nothing that anyone can say or do to stop that.

            As for getting the addresses of musicians...yes, I can see how that would be an issue.

        • You are ignoring the costs of production, marketing

          Why do CDs cost more than tapes? Tapes are much more complicated to manufacture, yet cost less. Even ingoring the complexity of a tape, there are fewer and fewer tapes sold, making for decreased economies of scale, so they should be pricier, yet cost $1-$2 cheaper, always. You market the albium (and the singer, but thats another diatribe) not the medium, so that has no bearing on costs.

          Who creates the marketing needs? The labels themselves. In the need for bigger and bigger blockbusters, each album now has to sell a million records or it will never make back the initial costs. It's only the bottom line now (one could argue it's ALWAYS been just the bottom line) so you have musicians being marketed as products now, not artists. Witness "American Idol", "Making the Band". NSync, 98 degrees, NKOTB, New Edition, 3rd Bass - all manufactured bands. Created not by the artists but by the labels. They wanted a quick buck from these guys, so instead of having the guys start small and build a fan base, you spend and market the hell out of them to get name recognition, and hope that the music is good enough that some folks even might buy it. The musicians not good enough? Well, ask Milli Vanilli if that stood in their way. They were cute, they got on stage. Hmm, my point in all this rambling? The marketing cost monster is a problem, but it's one of the labels' own creation.

          Public Enemy released There's a Poison Going On on Atomic Pop, an internet only label (which has since gone under). It cost $8 to download, $10 if you wanted a physical CD, which had a value add - an autograph by Chuck D. (which I have - there's a good way to have people spend money, give them a value add). The same CD cost $18 at Virgin megastore. What costs, marketing or otherwise, did they do to warrant the $8-10 markup, esentially a 100% markup?

          I'm not defending piracy. Dorks who say "well I'm stealing this because they're ripping off the artists!' are just rationalizing bullshit artists. But the recording industry also has it's faults. If they didn't price CDs well past their production costs, there would be less incentive to steal (though the stealing would still be equally morally wrong). This is just one of those situations where nobody is completely clean, and having either side talking about how dirty the other side is doesn't clean anybody up much.
      • And, finally, we just want free stuff.

        Rationalize all you want. In the end, you still got some information without the creator's permission. This is illegal and (by most definitions) wrong.

        Now I'm off to do it anyway.
    • But that doesn't excuse Napster.

      Oh yes, Eeeeevil Napster.

      What exactly did they do? They made a program that lets you move files across the internet. I have about 10-12 programs that do that. Everything from IRC to OutlookExpress to game services. That's all the internet does, move data from one place to another. And letting people designate arbitrary files to move is basic functionality for hundreds of things.

      So, was anything different about their program? They specialized in one file format which isn't particularly unusual. Even if that was Eeevil they could always generalize to all file formats like more recent P2P programs.

      Anything else? It included search functions. Ooooo! Searching is Eeeevil. Lets all go lynch Google while we're at it. I've found quite a few MP3 files using Google.

      You may as well outlaw the internet itself for contributory infringement. It would shut down every single P2P service in shot. It would solve plenty of other problems too.

      -

  • So now all muscians are compensated fairly. (Score:5, Funny)

    by gelfling ( 6534 ) on Sunday November 24, 2002 @11:17AM (#4743067) Homepage Journal
    Whew - sure as shit glad we dodged that bullet.

    Thank god and the record industry for making the world a better place.

  • Request (Score:3, Funny)

    by dynayellow ( 106690 ) on Sunday November 24, 2002 @11:47AM (#4743178)
    Hey, can some of you go buy this stuff, then make a copy and give it to me for free? Thanks.

  • IP (Score:2, Interesting)

    by luphus ( 201537 )

    Haven't seen this mentioned yet, but last I heard Roxio is buying [com.com]Napster's intellectual property. Not sure what they intend to do with it though :)

    -nwp

    • There was some rumor of Roxio planning on developing a for-pay download system using the Napster name; I wouldn't doubt it, Roxio could make a lot of money hawking a subscription service using the Napster name, especially to those who are more clueless than us.

    • More on Roxio (Score:2, Informative)

      by Kommet ( 27381 )
      I tried to submit this story to Slashdot twice (not complaining, just stating), once when I couldn't tell anyone that Roxio was buying Napster, just that "someone" was, and a second time when the press release hit the wire [roxio.com].

      Roxio is trying to buy "substantially all" of Napster's assets which is mainly the Napster name and the IP patents Napster has. Roxio passed on the physical assets (obviously) as it didn't need them, and on just buying the company outright as it didn't want to inherit Napster's debt load or pending lawsuits. The proposed sale is for $5 million in cash and 100,000 shares ($300-$400 thousand), and needs to be approved by the Delaware bankrupcy court handling Napster's bankrupcy.

      What they intend to do is "secret" until Napster is actually bought, but with a reasonable assumption or two you can figure it out. Roxio's business is computer software, and about 40% of their income used to come from OEM bundling of lite versions of the software with computers and CD-R/RW drives. When the PC market took a dive, the OEM agreements made less, but also slowed the rate at which new users were upgrading from the lite to the standard version of the software which further reduced revenue. If you look at the income they reported this last summer, it was well below expectations and at that point the stock dove from the $16-$18 range to the $3-$5 range.

      Roxio needs/wants a source of income that is not tied to how often people buy new computers or CD burners. A subscription music service may just be the ticket. Remember, Roxio has agreements and contacts with all the major recording labels and even with some movie houses.

      For the record, I don't work for Roxio, I just know about an eighth of the company.

  • Ok, but am I the only one who's looked at the hardware list they're selling, and wondering why the hell they have so much gear?

    For God's sakes, they went belly up because they bought so much damned gear!

    13 - Sun Microsystems Enterprise 420R Server With Up to 4ea 450mhz Ultra Sparc Iii Processors , 4GB Memory 72GB Of Total Storage

    91 - VA Linux fullon 2230 Server Server With Up to Dual P3 800mhz 1GB 18 GB Of Total Storage

    what the hell?!?

    They've got more gear than Nasa, CIA, and the FBI combined.
    • You're right...

      eeh? [dovebid.com]

      I didn't know Napster was *that* big until now... jeez
    • I've got a better question... where did they find the money to buy all that stuff (or think they were)? The very first item in the inventory is nearing 1M$ (GSR's are blindingly expensive, even used.)

      And there are things in the list like Ultra2's, Sparc1's, and a Portmaster 2E. From which draw(s) did they find that crap?
  • Does somebody know what happens to the people who started Napster? Will they spend the rest of their life paying off their debts? Will no bank ever going to supply them credit again? Does setting up such a groundbreaking company and failing affect the rest of your life?

    If it does, i suggest them writing a book "The Woes of Napster - The Secrets revealed" ;)
    • Incorporation or LLC formation has the benefit of shielding the founders and employees from personal liability from debt. Form a legit corporation, go bankrupt, and you still keep your personal house, car, etc... but business assets are gone, like in this case.

      It's not foolproof, as clever legal twats can find ways to pierce the corporate veil and collect personal assets for repayment of creditors; but in most cases true corporations that have a board of directors, keep acceptable records and the like generally have only the business assets repoed.

    • Does somebody know what happens to the people who started Napster?
      Shawn Fanning is "hangin out" in mountain view. I hardly think he's having money problems.

      Will they spend the rest of their life paying off their debts?
      If you are a sole proprietor, and you file for bankrupcy, you are not personally liable for your debts. Thats what bankruptcy is. If you are a corporation (a seperate entity) and you file for bankrupcy, the corporate entity is no longer liable for it's debts.

      Will no bank ever going to supply them credit again?
      Credit is more than your past. It's your present too. It should take about a decade for the bankrupcy to be forgotten, but I don't think Fanning would have much trouble getting some capital for any bright idea he might have.

      Does setting up such a groundbreaking company and failing affect the rest of your life?
      Yes. It makes you better than the rest of the population. Theres nothing wrong with failing. Theres only something wrong with not doing.

      If it does, i suggest them writing a book "The Woes of Napster - The Secrets revealed" ;)
      I think MTV might be making the "napster" movie.
    • MSNBC interviewed Sean Fanning [msnbc.com] and there was a corresponding Slashdot story [slashdot.org] about two months ago. Pay attention. :-)
  • Just attempted to access the catalog for this auction, and discovered that Dove had made the pages specific to MSIE. Neither Netscape nor Mozilla will display them. No IE? Can't see the catalog. Guess I won't be bidding.
  • (9) - SUN NETRA D130 DISK ARRAYS, with up to 36GB of Total Storage

    What's that 3 disk raid?
  • Or am I thinking of End of the Line?
  • Well, I wonder if Sean Fanning ever realized what a powder-keg his idea was going to be. He was probably just trying to make his own life easier (instead of having to deal with the FTP bullshit). "Aye, Napster, we hardly knew ye!". Rest in peace.

    Now, back to KaZaa, WinMX, Gnutella, and Morpheus! ;-)
  • I remember it fondly...

    Back in the late nineties when we were so easily impressed. P2P was new, and I was very impressed...

    "Wow! Look at that 4kb/s transfer rate you got! Lemme guess, you got a new 56k Modem?"

    Then firing up the 2X CD burner... heaven on Earth...

  • Dove bid, who I buy alot of stuff from, loves to add stuff from other sales together, so buyer beware, it might not have been from napster.
  • well here comes more meat for fuckedcompany.com
  • I think of Napster as the first battle in the war of big media vs the public. Big media may have killed Napster, but the fight made tons of people aware of file sharing, and a lot of information has come out into the open about the nature and history of copyright, the relationship between people, their culture, money, and the powerful few who want it all, and the extent of corporations' leverage over our lawmakers. A lot of good will come out of this that I'm sure was completely unintended by people like Hilary Rosen and Jack Valenti. To me the Napster final auction is kind of like when people were selling bits and pieces of the Berlin wall.

    On the other hand, I tried to post a story about the DoveBid auction when it was first announced 3 days ago, but it got rejected. See? See? It was worth space on /. after all!
  • If you ever want to have a lot of fun, I recommend that you go off and program
    an imbedded system. The salient characteristic of an imbedded system is that
    it cannot be allowed to get into a state from which only direct intervention
    will suffice to remove it. An imbedded system can't permanently trust anything
    it hears from the outside world. It must sniff around, adapt, consider, sniff
    around, and adapt again. I'm not talking about ordinary modular programming
    carefulness here. No. Programming an imbedded system calls for undiluted
    raging maniacal paranoia. For example, our ethernet front ends need to know
    what network number they are on so that they can address and route PUPs
    properly. How do you find out what your network number is? Easy, you ask a
    gateway. Gateways are required by definition to know their correct network
    numbers. Once you've got your network number, you start using it and before
    you can blink you've got it wired into fifteen different sockets spread all
    over creation. Now what happens when the panic-stricken operator realizes he
    was running the wrong version of the gateway which was giving out the wrong
    network number? Never supposed to happen. Tough. Supposing that your
    software discovers that the gateway is now giving out a different network
    number than before, what's it supposed to do about it? This is not discussed
    in the protocol document. Never supposed to happen. Tough. I think you
    get my drift.

    - this post brought to you by the Automated Last Post Generator...

Slashdot Top Deals

Waste not, get your budget cut next year.

Close