Slashdot Mirror
Napster, Napster, Napster
michael.creasy was the first with the news: "After
The Offspring
started selling Napster merchandise, they are now being sued by Napster according to
an article at Sonicnet.com." That should wake a few people up. Update: This is not a lawsuit, it's a cease-and-desist. On the lighter side (this means it's a joke, for the differently clued), Brian Briggs wrote in to share the bbspot news story about Metallica's 'Download This' album.
>It's not that peer-to-peer file sharing is wrong.
>It's that a multi million dollar VC-funded
>corporation
That's not saying very much thesedays, when a bunch of marketoids and a halfassed frontpage generated e-commerce site can get multi-million dollar VC.
A couple of weeks ago, MTV ran a special on the Ten Spot entitled "Napster: Grand Theft Audio" (ironic eh? using a play on the title of a popular COMPUTER game as an expose on their smear job of computer geeks).
Now, this being MTV, they did their best to slant the story against napster, protreying them as these evil pirates trying to murder innocent musicians (taking food off my baby's plate blah blah blah). And of course, metallica, and lars in particular, was the white knight that would slay the dragon, and save the damsel in distress.
Everything went according to plan... until they interviewed lars... and later when they interviewed the two napster guys.
And despite MTV's bias, everytime lars opened his ugly mouth he came off as the asshole that he is. He just couldn't help it, he sounded like a malicious SOB every time he spoke.
Meanwhile, the napster authors came off as just what they are: a couple of nice, kinda introverted, computer geeks; kinda shy and embarassed to be in the spotlight so much.
>Napster isn't a front corporation for a bunch of
>innovative software engineers...
Well, yeah it is actually. This isn't some destructive monstor like microsoft.
What *IS* Napster? It's a nifty little program written by a couple of college kids. When they finished it, people told them it was really cool and that they could make some money off of it. So they started a company.
Now, that may not adhere to the RMS/ESR/Slashdot ideal of "immediately open the source and give the copyright to the FSF", but that *IS* how a lot of innovative companies get their start.
And guess what? They didn't sell out. Did you know that thet don't run their own company? They hired professional management and a CEO and returned to codeing. Think they are liveing the life of the ostantiously wealthy? Think again. They (if Newsweek is to be beleived) share a small apartment in San Mateo. No Feraris, Porches, or beamers either. Try a '94 Honda.
Yeah... really evil guys.
john
Imagine all the people...
Which still begs the question, how exactally do they plan to make money? I've downloaded hundreds of songs from them (And yes, I have the CDs for all of them) and never paid napster a dime. I'm not even using their client.
Finkployd
Trade-mark. Not copy-right.
Po-tay-to, Po-tah-to. To-may-to, to-mah-to. <singing>Let's call the whole thing off.</singing>
Seriously, though. Copyright is ownership of the right to copy the material in a product such as a book, a song, or a video game. Trademark is ownership of the right to copy a product name or logo. The core issue is use of someone else's idea.
You're wrong. Napster is, in its purest form, a distributed filesystem that doesn't even know it. Napster is a very useful tool for sharing legal songs as well.
Hey, that's right, and a thermonuclear device is at it's purest form a recreation of the live-giving energy of the sun. It's a very useful tool for clearing land for canals and hydroelectric dams.
Just because 99.44% of its users are shuttling crappy, copyrighted material around doesn't remove the usefulness of the program. Napster is a good tool for the job of shuttling around mp3s, whether crappy or copyrighted or both or neither.
So, you're saying that Napster would've gotten all this media attention and accompanying venture capital with only 0.56% of it's current user base? Face the (pirated) music. Napster is only making money due to the large pirated user base and has no financial interest in stopping it.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
After all, Napster is a legitimate business organization, and other entities have no right to make profits off of their hard work. As we know, Napster would never, ever make money off of anyone else's work, not even indirectly.
Look at it this way: Up until the Internet, distribution inefficiencies made buying music similar to paying the cover fee to go into a club. If you didn't pay, you didn't get to hear the music, and that's why they could get $15 out of you.
Now the Internet comes along like a hurricane, and all of a sudden the nightclub walls have been knocked down. So now all the bands have to give concerts outdoors, and people can hear them whether they buy a ticket or not. Street musicians exist in the real world as well, and if they're good they can still make money by soliciting donations.
Admittedly, they don't make as much money as behind-closed-doors musicians do, but that's the way the cookie crumbles... the walls are gone, and telling people to pretend they're still up isn't going to work forever.
(note: above analogy probably stolen from here, please don't sue)
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
They are pretty much forced into a corner here. If they don't sue, then they might lose their trademark (since they aren't trying to protect it from dilution). If they do sue, then they take the risk of looking like hypocrites.
I don't think they had a choice but to sue here.
--- Biffster.org
"Bite my shiny metal ass."
``The government is slapping a $1000 tax on all TV sales and resales. If you don't like paying the extra $1000 then protest by not having a TV.''
Is that a sensible argument? No. Most people really want a TV enough that they'll buy one anyway. It would be an ineffective protest.
"Copyright" is a tax on copying, which you may believe to be good or bad. Maybe I object to the amount of market power that ends up in the hands of a few huge corporations as a result of this tax. Simply abstaining from buying CDs would be an ineffective protest. If these corporations also fund politicians' election campaigns, I may not have much strength to fight it politically either.
However, a campaign of mass civil disobedience can work. If enough people support unauthorised copying it will be impossible to stop and the authorities might think about changing the law.
I'm not supporting such a protest here [or rejecting it]. I'm just saying that the view which says "boycott it if you don't like it" doesn't address the problem. If someone really believes that the law is unjust (and isn't just acting selfishly) then they may be justified in performing unauthorised copying.
perl -e 'fork||print for split//,"hahahaha"'
However, Napster and the Offspring have already come to an agreement. Read the MTV News story Offspring, Napster Reach T-Shirt Accord . Napster is now allowing Offspring to sell merchadies and is even giving them more stuff to sell.
--weenie NT4 user: bite me!
--weenie NT4 user: bite me!
"Computers are nothing but a perfect illusion of order" -- Iggy Pop
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
In this case, they were just protecting their trademark - they have to issue an order or else they lose their own rights to the trademark.
The Offspring don't have to obey the order, however... All Napster has to do is show that they made a reasonable effort to protect their Mark. (I agree with the earlier comment that the smartest thing they could have done, though, would be to send them a license agreement.)
And if the Offspring claim this is a case of "tit for tat," then they're confusing trademarks with copyrights, and aren't as smart as they first appear. It reminds me of playground argument tactics. (Of course, that fits right in with The Offspring's image.)
I can see the fnords!
For a group whose music I can only half-heartedly tolerate, they sure are a bunch of whacky guys. If I ever have a daughter and she insists on dating a real creep, I hope it's one of the OffSpring-type creeps.
After all, just like freely distributing pirated music supposedly generates great publicity for artists, distributing clothing with Napster logos and such should only further Napster's cause, right? . . . Right?
I'm really tired of this Napster deal. You know what? If you want commercialized music (ie, not free), then go BUY it. If you don't like the fact that you have to pay so much for it ($20 is a lot!) then protest by not buying it. Or set yourself on fire like the Tibetan monks or something. Just, for god's sake, quit whining about information wanting to be free and how evil the RIAA is and so forth. I agree, to a point, with all the points made by the pro-Napster side, but eventually it all get's so rediculous that you just can't support it anymore.
Sure, maybe you feel art should not be restricted or available only for a fee -- but it is. Art is a commodity and that is what keeps artists producing it. As much heart as a creative person may have, they need to eat, too. And if they are so successful that they can afford a gold Ferrari with sex slaves and a mexican house-boy, then cool -- I'm glad they could have such an impact on so many people and they deserve their cash.
The point being that two wrong's rarely make a right, and just ripping off music that someone else created -- when they have made it plainly obvious that they do not want their music distributed in such a way, is WRONG. Many people have posted before claiming "well, it's only wrong if you inject morality". No -- it's wrong if you inject common-sense, too. How many of you who are so steadfastly against the record industry ("They steal from the artists and don't pay them a dime!") have ever actually sent any money directly to an artist because you appreciated the great material they produced -- that you pirated? Never? That's what I thought.
The biggest problem our world seems to be facing in this arena is that when you sell oranges -- you have a set number of oranges to sell -- thus a limit to how many can be purchased. Someone can't buy an orange from you and then make ten more oranges out of that and give them to friends (who will then not buy oranges from you -- because they get them free from their friend). Oranges are tangible (not tangerinable) -- they cannot be replicated like an MP3 or photocopy can. With intellectual property, it almost feels like we're breaking a fundamental law of nature by not allowing it to be completely free -- only because a thought, video, song, game can be so quickly and easily reproduced for anyone who wants it -- at no cost. Still, as we've deemed art to be a commodity, whether or not something is easily replicable doesn't really impact on whether or not you are purchasing that unit and the rights to do what you will with it in entirety, but the rights to experience and own that copy of that information and share it with those you are able to -- so long as it is bound by that single existing copy. In other words, treat it like the oranges -- if you want all of your friends to see what an orange is like, let them taste yours -- but if they want their own oranges, they have to go buy them.
What it comes right down to is that you did not create this material. Someone else did. Who the fuck are you to decide how their work should be distributed? Don't rape the artist anymore than their record company already is, for christ's sake.
Just for the record, yes I have used Napster. I find it to be a pretty unreliable service with a poor selection (unless you're looking for hip-hop) that belches up half-recorded MP3's most of the time. So I'm not wholly innocent here. But I also do not have a single MP3 of a group that I have not purchased the album of. If I like a group well enough to keep their MP3's around, I usually decide to go drop the $20 or so for each of their albums (as my large collection will attest to). But there are a lot of people who will grab every MP3 they can from an artist and never think twice -- or ever purchase any of the group's releases, let alone ever consider paying the group for the tunes.
---
icq:2057699
seumas.com
Offspring is not chalk full of lower IQ people as some of the more stereotypical bands are. In fact, the lead singer (Dexter, I think) was working his way toward a PhD in biology in Decatur Georiga (Emory, I believe).
I'll bet this was the intent all along. Napster is currently in heat regarding trademark allegations, etc. as Miou pointed out. However, by sending a cease and desist they shot themselves in the foot from a logical point of view. This is why (though IANAL):
Napster deals in giving out (essentially) copyrighted materials. Napster is now in litigation over these issues and is pleading that it is not the entity that is actually stealing the music. This is (sorta) true, they are the transport by which it happens.
So what Offspring did that is so clever is to hit Napster with their own medicine. They take the napster name and logo and offer a means for it to be distributed. I bet they personally don't manufacture a single thing for sale on their site. However those items probably don't come directly from Napster either. This means they are mearly offering a means to distribute them. This is very similar to exactly what napster is doing to everyone else. The best part is how much it costs Offspring to do this. And the answer is not much... a hell of a lot less than a lawyer, that's for sure. They get the added bonus of ego points for blatently outsmarting the Napster board of trustees. Proving with intellegence instead of finance that the RIAA is actually doing a Good thing, because Napster just dropped their trow to show the world it's just another FUD corp betting on IPO.
And to think I just liked them for their music...
- Sig
Napster is going to have a hard time not looking like a hypocrite with all of this.
Yes, trademarks are a differant thing from copyrights. Yes, Napster is not directly (or so they claim) performing copyright violations anyway. Yes, this is potentially a bigger deal, since as opposed to simply providing a service that allows illegal trading to occur (the same can be said of the telcos), The Offspring are directly ripping off Napster's trademark.
However, public opinion is rarely based on facts, and is more often based on perception. And as far as the public's perception of this will run, we've got a really fantastic case of the Pot and the Kettle going on here.
Not to mention the necessity of striking at a the group that stood up in their defence. That's going to look pretty bad too.
Napster would have been better of simply mailing them a merchandising agreement, and then striking at anyone else who started selling products with their name attached. But then, it's a little late now...
All operating systems suck. Some just suck less than others. (and some are virtual black holes)
Anyone wondering about the potential cleverness of The Offspring:
:)
Last I heard, Dexter Holland, the lead singer, was very close to finishing his Ph.D. dissertation in molecular biology. This was even once a question on Jeopardy (and no, not the Rock&Roll version)
From a band whose music just oozes sarcasm and irony, I wouldn't be surprised if this was panned and intentional.
Then again, their music also helped inspire me to quit one of the crappiest jobs I ever had, so I may be a bit biased...
Here's the official word from Napster, now: FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE JOINT STATEMENT FROM NAPSTER AND THE OFFSPRING SAN MATEO, CA and LAGUNA BEACH, CA - Napster and The Offspring have agreed to work together to offer a more complete line of Napster products. Profits from the line will go to a charitable organization agreed to by Dexter Holland and Shawn Fanning. "The Offspring have been great supporters of Napster," said Fanning, Napster's Founder. "We are looking forward to working with them." Dexter Holland stated, "T-shirts...good."
You're wrong. Napster is, in its purest form, a distributed filesystem that doesn't even know it. Napster is a very useful tool for sharing legal songs as well. Just because 99.44% of its users are shuttling crappy, copyrighted material around doesn't remove the usefulness of the program. Napster is a good tool for the job of shuttling around mp3s, whether crappy or copyrighted or both or neither.
Do you actually believe this drivel?
Napster wouldn't have a penny of their funding if no one traded illegal mp3s, and you know it.
You're right about the first part, though, I did have trademark and copyright confused, and I didn't realize that if Napster didn't defend their trademark that they would lose it.
-------- "All I want in life's a little bit of love to take the pain away" --Spiritualized
To an already insane situation. You have to admit that the Offspring have either A) a good sense of humor or b) someone really clever (or stupid depending on how you want to look at it working for them to pull off a stunt like that. The problem lies in the fact that while Napster may not be guilty of any wrong doing (echoes of "common carrier" and IANAL go through my head) the Offspring definitely are. Selling unlicensed merchandise is clearly a crime, unfortunately the case is not so clear cut with what Napseter is doing. I wish I had some sort of clear cut answer on the whole Napster good/bad thing. It's clearly illegal under current laws but use of Napster has opened me to worlds of music that I would have never have listened too. I even spent $60 at Amazon (I know, I know) during lunch today on CDs.
Bite me RIAA
Pete
The sole purpose of the Internet is to get porn and bomb making plans into the hands of children.
"A day earlier, another source in the Offspring camp said that if Napster issued a cease and desist order, it would "expose a huge hypocrisy.""
I'm beginning to think Metallica has a point. It's not that peer-to-peer file sharing is wrong. It's that a multi million dollar VC-funded corporation designed to create proprietary peer-to-peer file sharing software is wrong. Napster isn't a front corporation for a bunch of innovative software engineers... it's just a company trying to sell other people's music for free. if we're going to smack the recording industry in the face hard enough to get their attention, we need a truly distributed system, with proxying, encryption, and random port selection, so you can't profile it. So rather than sitting around on slashdot bitching about it, let's go write some code for gnutella!
just a thought,
-mwalker
--
What happens when you outlaw guns
"It's all fair," an Offspring source said on Thursday. "We've already said you guys [can use] our stuff - we're gonna do yours, too. You shouldn't have any problem with that, should you?"
I'm not sure whether Holland's trying to make a point, or is dead serious, or both.
I understand Holland's actually kinda cool with Offspring music being traded/pirated/whatever over the Internet...and it wouldn't surprise me if he's trying to make a point while meaning every word. "It's good enough for you, it's good enough for me" type thing. Of course, Napster could be playing "do as I say, not as I do"...but that would be hypocritical, now wouldn't it?:)
Plat
Now with nearly 100% legal mp3s! (except for the four Body Count mp3s - sorry Ice T.)
Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.
Esteemed sirs:
I could not help but notice that you are endorsing the dissemination of culture over the internet by selling Napster merchandise!
My brother, scrawny code-geek he is, would desparately like to wear apparel celebrating the technology behind sharing of files over the internet. To my mind, this would make an ideal birthday gift. The problem is, we both loathe Napster. It's slow, inefficient, and tied to a central database that Metallica and their legal eagles can subpeona. Thus, he downloads all of your songs using Gnutella, a peer-based network based around public domain software rather than a central service based around proprietary code. If you would be so kind as to design a decent "Gnutella" t-shirt, I would be ecstatic! Since there is no trademark, and no-one to sue or be sued, you can promote Gnutella -and- turn a tidy profit! A shirt in "L" size would be ideal.
As for myself, I find an IP-based file sharing scheme to be too invasive of my privacy, which is why I endorse FreeNet, a system that offers technological guarantees of anonymity. Like Gnutella, it is a "free software" project with no enforced trademark. I'd be delighted if you could design a snazzy FreeNet hat I could purchase from you.
While you are at it, "NFS", "FTP", and "IRC" T-shirts commemorationg the death of the music industry and the overpaid hacks and lapdogs churning out artless product for it would be spiff-a-riffic.
SoupIsGood Food
There is a big difference between what Napster is doing and what The Offspring is doing. The Offspring are making money directly off of Napster's trademark, which is specifically illegal. (Sort of like if Microsoft started selling Slashdot.org merchandise from their website.) But Napster only provides a file sharing service; they don't make money directly from the Offspring's trademarks, or any other band. The legality of this is being sorted out in court, but providing a service that allows individiuals to share files definitely has not been decreed to be illegal yet. Selling merchandise with somebody else's tradmarks definitely is illegal.
Unhappy? Kill your television.
Though I am not a fan of The Offspring's music, I think this is a hilariously ironic look at the true forces hard at work at Napster. Napster isn't "the good guys", they're trying to make money like every other corporation, and they're not afriad to sue, just like every other corporation *cough* RIAA *cough*.
Napster lives and dies on trafficking illegal music. If Napster didn't traffic illegal music, there would be no demand for it at all. The offpsring basically just pointed this out, after "supporting" Napster.
This is altogether too funny, someone needs to moderate the story up (+1, Funny)
-------- "All I want in life's a little bit of love to take the pain away" --Spiritualized
Napster should collect the names of everyone who is buying napster stuff from The Offspring then The Offspring can stop selling napster stuff to those people.