Slashdot Mirror
Napster Going to Subscriptions
An amazing number of readers submitted links to various sources discussing that napster will now be subscription based. This follows an
agreement with BMG. As Hemos said before, conceptually this is fine, but it'll be interesting to see how its implemented, and what they charge.
All these media pundits using phrases like "killer app" and the "next best thing to hit the net," I have to wonder that if Napster switches to a subscription service, how many people will use it?
For me, the allure of Napster was free and anonymous access (although agreeably, anonymous is highly relative), but with them charging a subscription fee, no matter what the cost, you are going to have to relinquish personally identifiable information. You may say that this is all good and fine, because now the record companies work "together" with Napster, but I think it'll be a cold day in Hell before you see every record label willing to work with Napster.
Until that day comes, then any information you submit could just as well be subpoened by some lawsuit-happy label, whether it be one of the "Big 5" or some small indie label that you downloaded one song from.
On the flip side, I suppose it's good to see these labels realizing that they cannot stop what Napster has started.
Information is the catalyst for revolution
in short, they make me pay, I share nothing
--
bend like the reed
When people expect a handout or as the old pick-pockets of old used to say a light fingered touch to be the source of compensation then eventually the theif will get what he or she deserves for the oft' picked pocket soon is empty.
Just because something can be stolen does not mean that there always be something there to steal. As a musician I am becoming less and less interested in offering myself and my work: yes my intelectual property up to the wolves.
If the theives would try to create they would have less time to steal and that would be good for all of us and maybe the value of creativity would not be dinigrated as it is now.
--
--
You are a fucking moron.
Did anyone else not see this?
BMG will begin distributing their artists' work on pay-Napster. They will collect income (sounds like monthly subscription). OK, no problems here.
Napster will still have a free service, all right. It'll have unwatermarked mp3s on it, all right. I dare you to get anything other than 15- to 30-second clips of "popular" tracks from it though. All inspired, of course, by fair use.
It'll be a shame to see Napster go.
This post expresses my opinion, not that of my employer. And yes, IAAL.
what happens when we have to pay for services like, irc, ftp.cdrom.com, /. ? granted, i pay my isp monthly, but the internet is getting WAY to commercial...
granted, websites must operate, but i don't like all the banner ads i see, on any page.
i actually like to firewall them out, and if i get off my butt, get a plug-in for ie to stop all images of the default banner-ad size...
but, how much is anyone willing to pay for napster? the great thing about it was it was free, and easy, now we have to hassle with membership fees...
plus there's things to figure out like bandwidth, time, files shared, etc
i think you should have to pay the guy who shares it, that would be neat, i would make a killing off of that, but that's unfair to everyone.
also, if i have to pay for something, being as broke as i am, i'm NOT gonna do it. i'd rather just be just as broke as i am now, and not be more broke :)
i hope/think there's ALOT more people out there like me, who don't like wasting money, and won't go on napster...
hence less people on napster
hence alot less mp3's ..
hence a dying napster
Runnin' On Empty
hur hur, yeah, and then they jizzed
--
Precisely. Or if that doesn't float your boat, Mojo, Scour, or Gnutella. P2P isn't dead; one company without a business model is getting sued by an entire industry and - surprise! - they're selling out. It kind of had to happen. Now let's focus on some of these open services who have no central server operator to get sued. That will be a much more interesting legal precedent, I think. And regardless which way it goes, free music swapping for a long time to come for all the valid purposes you've mentioned.
> I would hope that if I am paying a fee for this new service, then I will be guaranteed to find a high quality recording of the songs I am looking for.
> This means BMG/Napster needs to set up some big honking file servers of their own for me to use.
Get real. This is BMG we're talking about here. Odds are good they won't have anything that you're looking for in their catalog. They are one record label out of thousands - and though they might be big, they still only carry perhaps 10% of the available titles at most.
Even if you listen to purely popular music, odds are good their catalog is going to be totally insufficient.
-dentin
Alter Aeon Multiclass MUD - http://www.alteraeon.com
1. I wouldn't pay money for recordings of the quality that many of the things I download for free from Napster. For free, they're OK, but not for pay.
What do the independent artists do? Some of them depend on Napster to get their music to the public, and they expect it to be free. Will Napster and the music industry give them a cut?
Not Gnutell, Freenet!
They ARE out to get you simply because They are in it for themselves and they don't care about you.
"Napster totally bent over and took it up the ass here."
yeah, and then they squatted over their user-base and expelled the ejaculate.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
You are a moron. I don't know how else to break it to you, but the fact that the record companies are thieves does not justify you stealing from both the companies and the artists.
BilldaCat
Nice.
--
Here's a concept, publish shorter versions of songs suitable for public consumption to advertise the longer pay-per-download or CD album versions. They could call it the single. They just need to come up with a scheme for a "flip side."
----------------------
BMG is involved in other online music sales schemes
I was not aware of this. Got any links?
This is supposed to be great art. So why does it look like a bunch of decapitated naked people? -- Calvin
A shared FTP would allow you and your friends in Germany to share your desired types of music much easier.
Also, I think that a group of friends sharing music on a private FTP server falls closer into the guides of 'fair use' than anything else.
---
seumas.com
Cool! Now I can pay for music... Pretty soon, due to profit worries, Napster will need to raise their prices, going to a pay-for-song format. Then one day, I may be able to buy a whole CD from Napster for only $19.95 and get it shipped from BMG along with lots of extra DEALS just for me! I can't wait!!
=-=-=-=-=-=-=
=-=-=-=-=-=-=
No sig
It's rare that one finds an item on Napster that they couldn't find from a friend they already have. Napster just made it easier for people who don't have friends or connections to still get lots of free music.
---
seumas.com
Does this mean that if I don't send back my reply card each month, my computer will automatically download songs I don't like?
-atrowe: Card-carrying Mensa member. I have no toleranse for stupidity.
Yeah, there are huge "how's" involved in this situation... Flat fee or per song? I'd sign up for unlimited access to BMG's library for $20/month. But I think we all know that's not going to happen, unless BMG is feeling awfully feisty.
I'd be perfectly happy paying $1 per song if I get the added convenience of always being able to find what I'm looking for, getting a consistent quality with no cut-off songs with off-beat bitrates and bad volume settings, and with consistently and correctly labeled titles. No problem at all, and I would probably choose these over any free choice available. I'd much rather download them from a T3 that's always there, not being cut off because somebody turns off their computer. However, essential would be that any new scheme doesn't cut me off from picking up stuff from other folks that I otherwise couldn't find. I.e. it would be totally unacceptable if the choices got limited to what the record companies would like to sell. I would want to still be able to pick up Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy radio shows from somebody who has recorded and collected them, even if no record company has CDs with them in their catalog.
www.edonkey2000.com A free Napster alternative, the server piece is available as well as the client. Linux versions are also available.
Glad I didn't burn up my week's picks on Pud's board before I read this. They're dead meat.
http://www.fuckedcompany.com
In either case, the RIAA has to risk a favorable or limited decision over no decision whatsoever.
"Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
"I can see my house from here!" - ST:
Bwhahhaa....yeah right. I guess that was the only way to skirt the heavy fines, right?
Does anyone honestly think that Napster will retain even 10% of their current user base if they force them to subscribe? Subscription = tracking = loss of privacy to most folks (not that Napster was all that private in the first place, but now it is glaringly apparent to novices).
I'll see everyone on Gnutella...
------
Let me give you the lowdown
Who cares?
The important thing is the *record company* gets paid. They're the ones who own the material.
After all, the artists are just the paid employees of the record companies. They've already been paid.
Think I'm kidding? Look up the infamous IRS "twenty questions" and apply them to conditions that musicians work under.
--
Welcome to the Turing Tarpit, where everything is possible but nothing interesting is easy.
want to be free... its was to cost $4.95 a month.
DrLunch.com The site that tells you what's for lunch!
You mean like OpenNap and all the other servers out there that use the napster protocol? Napster was REed yonks ago, and the servers have been around a while to. for a list, check out Napigator
My email addy? should be easy enough.
Like I have said many times in the past: I have no problem, what so ever, paying for music, if the artist is actually going to get a cut. This might also be cheaper than going out and buying a full CD. My only question is: will there be a preview sample of the songs, maybe a streaming version, so that we can hear before we buy?
This could also help out the indie artists, now they might be able to make some money and move out of their parent's basements. (Tounge-in-cheek, for those with out a sense of humor)
~LE
There is no per-download fee, only a subscription. This also has to be pretty cheap, as they are competing with scour, MX, OpenNap, and Gnutella, which are all free.
"I like systems, their application excepted", George Sand (French)
This just proves that Shawn Fanning is your typical retarded 20-something kid, except he has a slight knowledge of Windows API. Holy shit, I am so surprised he is all in it for the money(sarcasm implied)
This announcement raises several issues:
1) How will the subscription fee be distributed? Will it be like the audio-cassette levy, which is split up between the major recording companies? If a user downloads a track from Matador or Alternative Tentacles, will the money go to the artist/label who released it, or to BMG?
2) What about non-copyrighted content? Will BMG be able to levy a tax on bands putting their demos up and trainspotters sharing their collections of train whistles?
3) Will the unencrypted MP3 format be used, or replaced with a streaming mechanism (as in Universal's subscription trial) or a user-keyed format (such as Liquid Audio, which can be encoded with the subscriber's credit card number)? The majors seem to be mortally averse to unencrypted audio formats.
If BMG will be getting paid for all Napster downloads, what does this mean for all of the concert recordings of taper-friendly bands (Phish, Dave Matthews, etc.) out there? The main stipulation with concert taping is that the recordings are not to be sold or otherwise traded for financial gain. Obviously, BMG (and the other megacorps that will join in this scheme) will be getting paid for 1) dedicated fans' labor of love; 2) Recordings of artists that may not even be signed with said record company; and 3) what is essentially public domain intellectual property. If any of the taper-friendly bands out there are following this closely, they will inevitably conclude that they will be getting screwed in such a deal! BMG profitting from grassroots recordings that aren't supposed to be sold in the first place? BMG making a buck from the MP3's on MY hard drive? Screw you, RIAA, and screw you BMG! I think it's obvious who's ripping off whom now.
I've always had an issue with Napster in that many of the times I download a file, the file is incomplete. There may be just a few seconds cut off the end of a song, or it might just be the first few seconds of the song. Either way, the song is incomplete and I end up deleting the file.
Would turing Napster into a pay-service change this aspect of Napster? Also, what about the quality of the MP3s themselves? I prefer encoding at 192kbps or variable 192-320kbps... but the average person thinks that 128kbps is just fine. I'm not willing to pay for any sort of service that doesn't provide me with the quality I want in my audio, and I don't think that turning Napster into a pay service will accomplish this.
-agent oranje
-agent oranje.
1. Well BMG has a LARGE catalog of music that might not be on Napster. And yes there are a lot of "high-quality" MP3's on the free zone but you don't know what your getting. Getting a BlameEnc 160kbps mp3 is different than a LAME 160kpbs mp3 (to me anyways). 2. No clue, maybe the copyright bit that no one uses? Force upgrade Napster-Free so that it won't send anything with the copyright bit I guess. Still, I think that the copyright bit can be changed. Besides that, the fact that people have PAID money and might not be tempted to share files that they have paid (doubt that, someone had to buy all those CDs).
No, this does not mean that suddenly artists will get compensated properly for their work. I am very interested in seeing how much they do get out of this; if it's essentially nothing, then I don't think I'm even going to bother. Incidentally, BMG and Columbia House are also engaged in another major screw-the-artist operation: those oh-so-tempting CD clubs. Know why those CDs don't have barcodes (or if they do, they're different from the in-store discs)? That's because those discs are manufactured as promotional items. No sales from those clubs incur any royalties for the artists. If you care about the music you listen to, don't sign with those damn clubs. (And they rape you for postage anyway.) So... where does this leave us, really? Slightly better off than before, but only slightly. And then there's all those companies other than BMG out there slavering and licking their chops.
Honorary Member of Jackie Chan's Kung Fu Process Servers
In a few months, napster will be completely dead. People will only be using napster to get to servers through napigator.
----------
Technoli
Now when you listen to mp3s, those stupid little white 'Postage Paid' cards will fall out of your speakers
In a few months, napster will be completely dead. People will only be using napster to get to servers through napigator.
----------
Technoli
--
--
You are a fucking moron.
There will have to be some fundamental changes in the Napster network for them to really track. What if I download a song from someone and its junk. So I download it from someone else. Does it count twice? What if my download aborts?
What about the Napster client clones like knapster? Since Napster doesn't officially support Linux, will it be left out in the cold once they switch? What about the Napster server clones, like OpenNap?
How about BMG's own news:
Invests in eritmo.com
Launches their own digital download site
Album Direct
Associating with LiquidAudio
In 1998 focusing on internet sales
And they invested in GetMusic.com and Artistsdirect.com (see article here) and have involvements with Sony and AOL. I don't have the link to the spinoff.
-technik
It has always really been the answer. Artists will get their money this way and people still have to pay for music they want but can still share and so on. I think this is win-win, though I agree, I have to wait to see the price. I personally think $1 /song is fine when you consider the average CD is $16 and there are 15-16 songs per CD.
-- DuckWing
Umm, what? I'm not jewish, and I don't think anything about that post connotated that I was.
--
News for Geeks in Austin, TX
next revolution please!
You get this for free because this is beta software. The final version has never come out, and they have not yet unveiled their final legitimate service. They have said from the beginning that the pricing was going to change in the future, when the Napster service moved out of its beta stage. Had they sold their client/server for a profit from the getgo, they would have been shut down by lawsuits immediately for making profits from copyrighted material.
Personally, I would have no problem paying around $5/month for this service, and would be glad to see this legitimized. BMG will have to open up server farms worldwide to distribute their content at high speeds and in good, controlled quality. A way of telling them apart will be necessary, perhaps by reserving the user name BMG for them, and an option in the search parameters will have to be added to search only BMG's music (plus others when they join in).
This is something that needed to happen for a long time. There will be Napster for the people who don't mind paying a subscription for legitimate, controlled content; and OpenNap for those who want the free media, digital freedom, yada yada yada. This is the only good possible outcome of this legal fiasco.
"I like systems, their application excepted", George Sand (French)
Notice in the articles, they make a bigger point that there is *still* file trading.
So, what that would mean is, you pay napster your paltry sum ($5 a month?), and get all the same choices you have now, maybe half as many, PLUS a whole collection of REAAAALLY high quality songs from BMG's collection (one of the largest on the planet).
This is *EXACTLY* what needs to happen.
Now, we will get to prove once and for all if it was the price, or the convenience that everyone loved.
I bet 50% loved the convenience and are willing to pay for it, and the other 50% "Just wants information to be free".
:)
We shall see!
GPL'd web-based tradewars themed space game
I don't like the idea either of being tracked.
I think the artists are going to suffer on this one......again......and the record companies are going to profit......again......
It's either on the beat or off the beat, it's that easy.
I moderate therefore I rule!
--
Are they going to let everybody just pirate the way they used to, just charge them a few bucks (monthly or per-download)?
If so, I wonder how many other companies still has a reasonably good cause to sue, surely if Napster is making money off it (.. can't you just hear the "not only do they facilitate the piracy of our music, they're making good earnings on it too, in legalese?).
Let the sheep trade on Napster anyway, I much rather want a fast ftp site anyway, where I don't get disconnected and hardly ever get so lousy speeds, not to mention I can resume the same version next time I'm around...
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Napster usage immediately drops 90%!
-atrowe: Card-carrying Mensa member. I have no toleranse for stupidity.
I would make the subscription usage-based, as follows:
You top up your credit at Napster with $40.
Every time you download a track, $0.x is subtracted from your credit.
[9|8]0% * $0.x goes to the record company (if found) who owns the copyright.The extra [1|2]0% * $0.x is split between Napster and the person you're downloading from.
In that way, people are paid(in fractions of a download) for their time, space and bandwidth.
Of course, there are problems with this, not least being the reliability of the service. At present ~50% of up/downloads are "Transfer Error!"s.
- A.P.
--
* CmdrTaco is an idiot.
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
This is a slam-dunk win for Napster.
One of the key issues -- strike that -- the key legal issue in the Napster case is whether the Napster technology has a "capacity for a substantial non-infringing use." No actual substantial noninfringing use is necessary for Napster to prevail -- just a capacity for the same. That standard is the one stated by the Supreme Court in Sony -- the one, overarching precedent in Napster.
A key point made in the briefs again and again is that there not only exists such a capacity, but substantial non-infringing uses are increasing in frequency in various ways: particularly the use of peer-to-peer sharing as a means to distribute files for which distribution has been consented. RIAA argues, pathetically, that such consent will never happen.
Bwaahaha! Gotcha!
By dealing with Napster to set up a consented, subscription-based sharing service, Bertelsman concedes the point -- there exists a capacity for a substantial non-infringing use, and hence can be no contributory infringement.
I wouldn't put that on the entire music industry. This is just one company, BMG, that sees a way to rake in some money. It will probably hurt the RIAA in the long run but my guess is that BMG doesn't care too much about that, they just want to make some money and the rest of the industry can be damned.
Icebox
At first I really thought that the lawsuit against Napster, Inc was an ethical issue, as many artists felt that their work was stolen.
But this just proves that the lawsuit was just to manipulate Napster into becoming a money collector for the music distributors. Not that there was any doubt that record companies lack any ethic, but staging this whole lawsuit for the sole purpose of getting a slice of Napster's equity is worse than anything they have ever done.
Just my personal feeling...
I was thinking of how to intentionally fail my drug test... It would make a good memoir story someday.
I was just wondering how this will affect other Napster style applications.
gn(u|o)tella is still going strong, although it seems to be covered with spam.
scour is bankrupt.
freenet is still going stong.
and many claim irc is still a good place for mp3.
yet others live and die my usenet.
This seems like it is a win/win for napster. They are able to make some money out of their partnership, and the lawsuit against them will be dropped. Now I wonder if this is an exclusive agrement or not.
I'm not sure if I like this idea anymore than any other. Napster to me has always been about trying out new music so that I can go out and buy it. I've got alot of friends who are exactly the opposite and believe that the whole point is so they don't have to buy any music what so ever.
What is going to be the cost of this service? Is it a monthly fee or per downloadable. A monthly fee isn't too bad, but per downloadable and I'm just not going to use it. Are these still going to be in standard MP3 format, or are they going to start watermarking the files, or worse putting them in some secure format. Will I be able to use ths service at work as well as home, or is the RIAA going to get all nutty on my ass and say that these songs are licensed for one computer.
Worse yet, how is this going to effect the Person to Person aspects of Napster. I've got friends that share mixes of their songs not available on CDs (heh...sometimes at great risk to their own careers). What about all the other little bands on smaller labels. I understand the artists have the right to choose how they want their sounds distributed and fully support this, but if the P2P aspect of Napster goes away, it will be like the Walmarting of America. Only those approved to distribute through this medium will be allowed to do it now. Will be be subject to only getting the censored versions of songs? Will their be other restrictions that we don't know about?
There are half a dozen other things I'd like to see answered before this goes into effect. As a musician and a consumer, this sounds like a really bad thing. Oh well, Indiana University cut off my access to Napster here at work anyways and had to go the OpenNap route. Maybe I'll just do the same at home as well.
Clif Marsiglio
"Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
"I can see my house from here!" - ST:
http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-3345604.ht
Something to think about from the article:
"Executives said they would not guarantee access to the full Bertelsmann catalog because they are relying on individual Napster members to provide and store all of the files.
The file-sharing model puts much of the burden of distributing files on people with fast connections and large libraries of music. Whether those people will happily spend money on a service that turns them into unpaid BMG distributors remains to be seen. "
The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
Actually, if you want to be technical, Gates did run a company before MS, look it up. Secondly, neither Gates nor Jobs requested a large infusion of cash for a totally unknown person/company (i.e., themselves). Thirdly, if Fanning didn't like those terms and conditions, he could have shopped around and found someone else. However, it's extremely doubtful that anyone would be willing to do that for him, especially given the technology.
Why pay Napster if I can just buy music CDs.
How about the fact that you can download an entire CD over napster faster than you can get to a store? Well atleast I can, of course they'd better ensure CD (or higher quality) as well as songs better be what they say they are. Also do I have to serve the songs to other users? It's one thing to share your collection as a good dead, but if I have to pay to share my collection I think they system just breaks down.
I know I wont pay to use Napster though. Besides there will be a better system in a month or two anyway!
So, they have a subscription service...that I could deal with and $5 a month would be fine with me for "all you can download" music.
... then they can track me and find out who I share it with as well.
.ogg files. Then, the "great jukebox in the sky" can continue to play on and on for FREE !!!
My problem is the format. BMG, Warner Bros., and Sony have all experimented with downloadable music -- *all* of it is either Liquid Audio or M$ Media format. That is where I draw the line. Nobody is going to tell me how many times I can listen (or copy) a song! And after they tag and encrypt the music they sell me
Forget that! If Napster / BMG stuck with MP3 they might have a chance in hell of pulling this off. But, I doubt it -- they MUST have SDMI or they won't play ball. Looks like this could be the big boost that Ogg Vorbis is looking for. We need to set up a Napster2 that only supports
Pay the artists? YES! (like I said subscription service would be fine with me). Support SDMI or any other proprietary or controlling format? HELL NO!!! I get this weird feeling that about 20 million Napster users are about to make a mass exodus real soon.
DO you really think they will charge something like $5.00 a month. If it is they will limit you on how many downloads.
And what happens if you download an MP3 that has errors or that cuts off the last minute of a song. I much crap will you have to go through to verify that in order to get your money back on that download.
So they want to charge for PERSON to PERSON file sharing. That's great, since this probably hasn't been done before, the patent office will most likely jump at the chance to give the first person who implements this technology a patent. Maybe if a slashdotter did it, they could get the rights, then refuse to license it. It would be fun to turn the tables on these corporate tyrants for once.
Sickman's spinfusor catches Anonymous Coward by surprise.
If Napster signs with only big record companies, where will other non-mainstream music go?
One thing I like about Napster is that you can actually find rare things. For example, some 30's live recording of Marlene Dietrich. Extremely underground stuff. Some background music in a commercial that links to a group that once existed. Some good Cha Cha songs to practice Latin dance... or just that song in your head all day.
Point is, not all Napster users are mainstream listeners. We, the rare music collectors, are afraid of losing ground. Think about it. Will BMG be willing to let the "free" version of thier non-free MP3 float around? I seriously doubt. They must get rid of pirated copies somehow. To me, that says, "Napster will someday get rid of the free service and become a media provider for big record companies." So what if Napster becomes a "subscription only" service? Problem is, the community, as a whole, loses those rare songs because no big companies support them.
"High Quality" is relative. Just about all pop songs need not go over 128k bitrate. However, for something like classical music, even 196 is not acceptable. Which is why most of them use Variable Bit Rate encoding.
Just like major computer vendors sell cheap computers, major record companies sell cheap quality songs. They advertise and package the songs nicely so that consummers dont care about the real quality. This is exactly the reason why Napster is revolutional: you download the song, get tired of it in 3 hours, never touch it again. By doing so, you escape the trap from the record company - making you buy something you don't really want.
I'd think that the only reason that source code is exportable is because it's been argued that it's "art" rather than a product. Which basically means that all the employees of the big software houses (besides the few open source, free software ones) work on the same terms, as they toil away at desks creating "art" for their companies to sell...
How come there has become no Napster for software? Why is everyone so quick to jump in and "defend" the artists by guarenteeing that there may no longer be a means by which they can receive any compensation?
Let the musicians stick up for the musicians. They know a whole lot more about the world they live in than you do. Let the techies worry about the techies. There are plenty of things you can fight for which are more up your alley, rather than having to "crusade" for others...
Oh yeah. You just want free music... And will go to any length to justify your taking and taking and taking...
I remember saying they should do it this way about three months ago. But if they are going to charge a flat subscription fee, they had better insure that I will be able to find any song I've ever wanted on the service.
"My job is being right when other people are wrong." -- George Bernard Shaw
Don't subscribe, use the software, but not the servers. NAPIGATOR.COM.....Works like a charm
"Lazyness is the first step towards efficiency." -Patrick Bennett
My question is will the monthly fee be the same for everyone? Not really fair to a user on a 28.8 connection who can download maybe a few CDs worth of stuff in a month compared to a nice T1 who can download the whole BMG library in that same amount of time.
Napster supports .ogg... however, finding a Napster client that knows this is a bit more challenging ;-)
Monty
Doesn't this go against the purpose of P2P file-sharing? You'd be getting it off a server now. Why doesn't BMG simply throw up a website? Wouldn't that be easier? And, how long is it gonna take someone with an OC-3 line to rip the entire catalog and throw it online? (Either on a server or on Gnutella, OpenNAP, etc.) This may fly for a bit, but 6 months from now, we'll all be listening to Napster's eulogy.
It seems as a rather logical resolution of this conflict. Given that BMG will provide servers for file hosting and other add-ons. The question which I have is:
Why $5/month? In the last 4 years I bought 10 CDs ~ $150. I'd have to pay $60/year or total of $240 for the same amount of time. I realize that I'm hardly and average CD buyer, but still...
This pricing scheme makes sense for "power users". How about an alternative pay-per-download plan?
That in addition to any new services BMG might want to provide. New B-tracks, special discounts, that sort of thing.
- I don't care if they globalize against free speech. All my best free thoughts are done in my head.
Why don't they just have banner ads? Seems simple enough, put in a spot for an ad in the "search" and "transfer" tabs of napster. There's room there and no one would mind, not as much as a monthly membership anyway. Napster could then use some of the money to pay BMG or whoever they need to appease.
Of course, this study conflicts with others that show how Napster promotes record sales. Why?
[warning: I feel a rant coming on!]
Hmm... maybe it's because CDNow's service is terrible! My first online shopping experience was with CDNow, and it took then 22 days to ship the 2 CDs I ordered. Twenty-two bloody days! On the 14th day, I used their website to cancel the order, and was sent an email on the 15th day that said it was impossible to cancel the order - it was already in process. But it still took them a week to ship it! I received it on the 24th day.
Now compare this to Amazon. Yeah, I know: "Amazon's one-click patent sux." But they shipped my single-CD order the next day. Unfortunately, UPS misplaced it. I sent an email requesting that Amazon call UPS and initiate a trace on the shipment. Instead Amazon shipped me another item, priority overnight! That's service! (On top of that, I eventually wound up with two of the items, at the cost of only one. Don't worry - Amazon is making up the trivial loss with my good word of mouth advertising.)
So the point is - maybe it takes an average of 90 days for internet users - who frequently happen to be Napster users - to recognize that they should avoid CDNow. (It took me only 30 days.)
This is the type of company that has Bertelsmann as a parent. Be afraid... very afraid.
I can see the fnords!
So does this mean they will offer support?
ie: no more girl calls geek: Hey can you come over and fix my napster?
prosebeforehos.com
As opposed to you spouting off some insults in a juvenile attempt to make yourself feel superior?
I care about Napster and MP3s, and I'm quite comfortable with my interests. I respect that you don't care about it, but I do not respect your flamebait against those who don't share your ubermensch mentality.
There is no problem which cannot be resolved by the judicious use of firepower.
What makes you so sure that this money goes to the artists any more than buying CD's do? And now, BMG is going to profit off of artists that it has nothing to do with. So in effect, BMG is out there making money from other major record labels, as well as independent artists. I see how BMG is winning from this, but not artists or fans. It just makes the middle man more powerful, and hopefully Lars and Dr. Dre will fight this even more than they were fighting against their fans before. Whatever happens, this is not a good thing that napster and bmg are teaming up. It screws over the fans and artists worse than before.
Mas vale cholo, que mal acompañado.
How about-
That's a few right there. Works for me.
Bertelsmann AG, specifically, not the industry as a whole. Napster has a long way to go, yet.
One thing they music industry could seriously benefit on, here, is the ability to meter the access of music. Follow trends, etc.
I, for one, have been bummed a number of times that a favorite album got damaged and, guess what? It's no longer available, go to ebay or something. I hope they get it all worked out, its really the best to have a fair compromise which benefits the producers (who did put up some development money), the artists and the fans.
--
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
in the first place. The concept looks good. I just hope it doesn't get warped in the execution. Now if the other labels go for the same arrangement, they will have a really sweet service and all the parties will be relatively satisfied.
I would be so happy to pay for the privilage of having access to the many many albums that are no longer in print, and are so rare as to never be found in the used stores. Imagine getting all those great industrial albums from my teen years, that were only pressed in a run of 2000 to begin with. Ah I can dream can't I?
Isn't it funny that Napster spent millions of dollars and hours fighting for us when the music industry tried to take our beloved mp3 network away from us...... and now that Napster's in trouble (has to charge users) most of us are going to turn our backs and run to another mp3 provider!
This is really nice for all those americans artist out there. But for me, being a dutch artist it is a bunch of crap. In holland i have the copyright of MY music. Thanks to napster&co i don't get payed for my music as well. I fully agree with you that the american system sucks, but why does this solution also hurt artist that don't have contacts with big labels??
Make a man a fire and he will be warm for a day, set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life
Yeah right, THATS why they sign the contract, to OWE money to the record company...Think man, they get money from the record company, also they get airplay and support from the company. If an artist wouldnt get a good deal with a record company they wouldnt sign the deal.
Make a man a fire and he will be warm for a day, set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life
Um, Napster is simultaneously promising to implement capabilities that in court they testified that they don't have -- namely, to monitor the transfers themselves, in order to determine which MP3s are transferred when.
Um, No. This straw man has nothing to do with the case.
Napster stated, truthfully and undeniably, that they cannot infer from the "title" of a work whether the work does or does not contain copyrighted subject matter that is being transferred without consent or subject to a fair use exception. Napster further stated, truthfully and undeniably, that the transfers of content are accomplished peer-to-peer, without capacity for review or intervention by Napster.
Nothing described thus far in this thread contradicts those propositions or gives rise to any questions of credibility. There is no cause of action in the complaint for negligence, and accordingly, there is no legal basis for which anyone should be "nailed for massive amounts" thereof.
Read that article on what courtny love said. All that nice support they have to pay for. They are told little lies to intice them, then sign, and realize too late that they've been had. Only the largest, biggest bands ever get to make any money at it. Most do not. Besides, until the internet, what other choice did they have if they wanted alot of people to hear thier music? Just remember, they end up paying for the airplay, paying for the cost of roadtrips, etc.
Seth
$5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!
Steal from the record companies? Since they've been stealing from us for the past 50 years it seems only fair. Steal from the artists? Well, maybe, but its not like they're hurting for cash anyway. Maybe if we got more acts interested more in making good music than a quick buck we'll get more variety and quality in music. Or not, who cares, i'm not crying for either of them. Besides, who ever came up with the idea that you should pay for music? Record companies, thats who.
Sickman's spinfusor catches Anonymous Coward by surprise.
The author, Damien Cave, doesn't identify his sources, other than some quotes from Napster CEO Barry. But he describes the deal as a) a loan from Bertelsmann to Napster, b) rights for Bertelsmann to buy part of Napster, c) a promise to drop the lawsuit once a membership service is online, and d) the availablilty of the Bertelsmann catalog for the membership service.
Cave also describes how the existing free service will remain.
I can see the fnords!
People demand rights far too easily. Why do you think that listening to music is a right? Is free healthcare a right? Is a free college education a right? Is happiness a right? NO! Jeez what a bunch of freeloading blood-suckers. If you dislike the publishers so much dont use their products.
Yes, but you *know* this is going to happen. Or you'll be assaulted with banner ads or pop ups or some similar BS that everyone seems to think will sell their product when doing business on the Internet.
In a way, it's already a "membership based" service, as you have to sign in with a username and password. Granted, there is no checking done, but hey, it's still a way.
Now if they were to make it so you have to log in with an email address (not without an AUP of course, I'm sure the spammers would love to get their hands on a list like that) I have no problem with that, but if they expect me to pay, I'll move on to gnutella or [xyz file sharing service] and continue downloading...
You might not get paid, but at least your music will be heard in a market you may not have had access to before. Eventually this exposure will lead to something. Case in point I discovered a local band (Astronaut Wife, in Twin Cities MN) that I really liked on mp3.com. I downloaded their music and when they finally made a CD I purchased it. Regardless of whether it is free or not no-one will have total control over their intellectual property once it goes public.
---------------
-- sed s/liberty/profit/g US.Constitution
I stopped using Napster the day I heard jackasses on campus talking about "this computer thingy that gets me the free musics." Fuck 'em, I say.
Listening is a right. Its at my discresion if i give the artist any money. No one said you have the RIGHT to make a living as a musician. That said, i wouldn't mind giving money directly to the artists. I won't be happy until the record labels disappear completely.
My bet is that part of the deal will involve Napster Inc handing over details to BMG to let them go after individual users for copyright violations. Heck, perhaps they'll do it themselves.
Um, Napster is simultaneously promising to implement capabilities that in court they testified that they don't have -- namely, to monitor the transfers themselves, in order to determine which MP3s are transferred when.
Perhaps the Court will be interested to learn why, if they now claim that it's possible when they had been arguing they could not, they should have ANY credibility, or shouldn't be nailed for massive amounts of negligence in the design of their system.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
One thing I think we can predict with confidence is that the record companies will still be getting the lion's share of the fees (they "own" the creative work, after all), and the artists who sign with the majors will still get screwed.
Personally, I'll switch to Gnutella and use Fairtunes.
"Research is what I am doing when I don't know what I am doing." -- Wernher von Braun
What about all the artists who DON'T have representation with BMG or the other corporation record companies? I guess their cuts of the subscription price go to whoever partners with Napster. Ah... sounds progressive.
Here you can find the press release from Bertelsmann announcing the strategic alliance with Napster: http://www.bertelsmann.c om/ press/press_item.cfm?id=2461
Just an excerpt:
Napster and Bertelsmann will seek support from others in the music industry to establish Napster as a widely accepted membership based service and invite them to participate actively in this process.
Sounds like this deal is in all ways wrong. It's like Stallman writing a program with great market potential and deciding that he's going to sell it to Microsoft.
Let's see if Shawn's soul gets into that big open-source community in the sky *now*.
I for one am going to switch immediately to OpenNap and Scour. Not that I have a problem with paying $5 a month for music, but it's the principle of the thing.
all those hard to find, out of print, tracks and original recordings that the record companies wouldn't have gotten paid for anyway. Now, any user who shares _their own_ recordings is essentially paying BMG, et al. for the privilege of giving it away. Admittedly, they aren't paying much, but it's always been about 'the principle' hasn't it?
Another question...if it's only $5 with BMG, how much will it be when all the other labels want a piece?
Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball.
Really, if Napster's going to go that route, I'd advise using Mojonation. At least that way you get some kind of ephemeral payback for the service you offer.
- Jonathan
Wonder if this will affect opennap and the like.
It will only drive up the traffic on the OpenNap network. Otherwise, it will have little effect because there are Free clients and servers for all relevant platforms.
Will I retire or break 10K?
note the keyword "new", not "change to" or "replaced by".
mod me down, but you know it's true. slashdot is all about posting sensationalistic "news" for the sole purpose of cranking out those banner impressions.
So what if they have a subscription service, even if they keep around their free service. When is the last time you used a server actually run by napster anyway? Frankly, I find the selection on non-napster owned servers to be better anway, and they are often just less clogged up.
So how do you do this, you ask? Just head right over to a server list (such as napigator's), find yourself an opennap server, load it up in gnapster and go on with your bad self. No fuss, no muss, no bother.
So somebody tell me again why napster's decision to have a subscription service matter? Do you really need to pay money per month to be able to download the newest Back Street Boy's single?
This sig is false.
The way I would like to see it done, is in sort of a columbia house way. Reffer 5 people and get 30 mp3's. Or something to that effect.
;-)
I won't use it anymore.
ah well looks like it back to the irc
/* oops I accidentally made a comment, sorry */
Now Napster can offer a server for people and I bet they will limit downloads to one or two at a time by each user.
Will the last company to abandon Linux please turn off the lights??!
Okay, I'm used to seeing duplicate stories about the same topic on Slashdot, but this is the first time the second story has linked to the first
-atrowe: Card-carrying Mensa member. I have no toleranse for stupidity.
That could be true. I noticed a strikingly similar +5 post a little while later...
This is a manual virus. Copy it to your sig and help me spread!
According to http://www.newmediamusic.com/ps/napsterstudy_11100 .html
It says that the people are willing to pay 15.00/month for Napster. NO THANKS! My 56k modem is not worth the monthly fee.
I will quit napster if this fee is too high.
According to http://www.newmediamusic.com/ps/napsterstudy_11100 .html
It says that the people are willing to pay 15.00/month for Napster. NO THANKS! My 56k modem is not worth the monthly fee.
I will quit napster if this fee is too high.
You are the moron. how do you steal from the artist if they aren't getting anything to begin with??
Obviously, the people who MAKE the music are the ones who start the process to bring it to you. Along with the team that wrote the song, the producer, etc. They're a huge part of the equation, and they're the ones I was referring to.
I don't give a flying fuck about the record labels.
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon? :P)
(If you can't figure out how to E-Mail me, Don't.
Good point, people like you will help artists if they like them. But i have no interrest to make music for all those script-kiddies out there who dl all music they like and never pay for it. It's not that i hate people who try/test if my music is their taste, i just dont feel like making music for people who dont want to give anything in return. By this i dont mean money allone, i can pay my bills with my normal job, but feedback or just a mail with "i liked your music" is really better than:"your song has been downloaded X times" and never hearing from anybody any more.
Make a man a fire and he will be warm for a day, set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life
something > nothing.
you must have missed math class that day?
BilldaCat
I agree with the hard-to-find song list rather than a corporate-sponsored catalogue. If I wanted that I'd go to MediaPlay.
The monthly subscription rate would work for me, if they keep the price reasonable. I'd also like to see some sort of table demonstrating how much of those fees to go the artists being downloaded, rather than just to the record company. I can envision a future in which Napster allows individual artists (like the big names who are currently under contract) to partner with Napster for direct sales. If they set up the service correctly, this can happen, and I for one would support it whole-heartedly.
The only part of this that really worries me is if they try to enforce some sort of "expiration date" on downloaded songs. The RIAA already charges me for the same song every time I have to replace the CD. I have absolutely no desire to keep feeding them money to keep MP3 files I've already paid for.
The whole thing is a big "If" for me. If they set up the service fairly, I'll support it. If not, there are a lot of OpenSource alternatives out there.
There is no problem which cannot be resolved by the judicious use of firepower.
When was the last time you signed a contract without reading it? Only idiots do that. If people get fucked in the ass for being stupid, it is their own fault. Maybe i'm not getting the whole idea here, not being an american, but if you don't read contracts before you sign them, you deserve to be nailed.
Make a man a fire and he will be warm for a day, set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life
I guess this means I'll go use OpenNap.
>I assume that as it stands, only BMG artists will be allowed on napster. This basically is a big "fsckyou" to all the indie
>artists or those who aren't signed with a major label. Well that seems like a pretty poor assumption, 1. because we all know about assumptions
2. because the details haven't been announced yet and
3. because Hank Barry (Napster CEO) has said, and a wide selection of articles on the announcement have pointed out, that there will still be traditional Napster (i.e. free) trading, while also a secure system using, for now, BMG songs. So, your assumption is wrong (if we can trust what Barry et al. say). >Also, what about incomplete downloads, poor encodes, or mislabeled songs? Presumably this is what the agreement is designed to avoid. The quality of the BMG-licensed songs, on the secure system, will be higher than the regular files. As such, the issues you raise shouldn't be problems. I think maybe we need to sit back and wait to see how this deal is going to pan out a bit before we all get worked up about how this is the end of the 'revolution' and all that. Details have been hugely scarce so far.... Sam
Is it fair to charge the same amount for a CD to a guy who lives right near a CD store vs. a guy who has to drive 50 miles to get to a CD store?
Is it fair if a guy's got a cable connection split 50 ways with 50 VCRs so he can record 50 shows at once vs. the guy with one VCR?
Is it fair that one guy has a computer and another guy doesn't?
If the guy with the 28.8 wants life to be "fair" then maybe he should belly up to the bar and get himself a faster connection (if one isn't available, well, sucks to be him then... just like the guy 50 miles from the CD store).
-S
--- What parts of "shall make no law", "shall not be infringed", and "shall not be violated" don't you understand?
I agree that it has to stay cheap, especially if Napster wants to retain even a small portion of its user-base. But would the numbers, at $5/month or even $15/month, really add up to make a decent business model? It seems like a bit of a spitball in a really large bucket. Also, even after reading the threads here and more stories on the BMG deal that I thought possible, I'm still a bit confused about how things would really work (both technically and conceptually). Can you have both the free P2P options and a subscription-based model happily co-exist? I just can't imagine that...
Then don't read or reply idiot. You care obviously. Very intelligent and grounded response. Thanks.
The next comment I write will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and see it early!
Oh please. Shawn wrote a simple piece of software, and he got a nice chunk of change for it. He did not take the lion's share of the risk or effort. His uncle did. Shawn also doesn't know how to run a business. He doesn't deserve to "run" the company, and he wouldn't know how to anyways.
$5/month sounds OK. Even $20/month (maybe higher), if it were open to just about all music available, would be fine. That's still far less than I spend on CDs every month. Why do this rather than just take what's already free? If I download for free instead of buy, I feel that's stealing... no ifs ands or buts about it. Hard-to-find stuff is a different matter.
.wav and burn onto a CD. None of this proprietary "gotta use our player" stuff.
A couple of caveats before I sign up...
It must be HIGH quality. The best MP3 is barely good enough. I've got a high speed connection, so I wouldn't mind pulling down a couple hundred meg per CD.
No watermarking. That will kill the sound quality and it disturbs music intentionally recorded in surround (messes up the pro-logic steering). Plus I don't like being tracked.
It has to be a portable format with no restrictions. MP3 is fine (except for the sound quality issue) because I can convert to
I want privacy options. What I download and the type of music I listen to is between me and the company I download from. I don't want to be a part of their marketing statistics, either as an individual or as part of a demographic.
I want cover art and inserts. Downloadable is fine, but make it high quality.
Finally, I'd like to know how my monthly fee gets distributed to artists.
-S
--- What parts of "shall make no law", "shall not be infringed", and "shall not be violated" don't you understand?
Excellent point -- BMG and Napster are really going to have to plan this out a little better; just because you're in the news with a plan doesn't mean that you have every problem worked out. They're going to have MAJOR complaints from dial-up customers...
--
Wooden armaments to battle your imaginary foes!
Check it out! WEB-NAP No more uploading just strait downloading and you can use this even if your employer blocks napster.
I was in #yourmom today
No one ever mentions that the RIAA stole from the consumers for years and years.. and it is still going on today with price fixing... Why don't we ever hear about that? All I ever hear is that I am a thief for downloading music and not paying for it... I have ZERO problem supporting the average artist(espc ones like Offspring). However, I can not give my hard earned money to someone so they can continue to find ways to raise prices artificialy and steal from me.... I will stick with ftp or gnutella.... Napster is now sleeping with the devil.
Taxes and Lazy People are best friends.
You're right of course about Napster taking it up the ass. But there was no other concievable outcome in this case. Napster has done us all a service by blowing the whole digital music scene wide open, but the fate of Napster is no longer relevant. Presumably they will find some smarmy MoR business model based on their "brand recognition"; the real action is moving elsewhere.
Check out the Tropus project: "napster with anonymity, by christmas 2000". This is intended to be a user-friendly front end for finding music on Freenet. There is already a proposal to integrate this with the MusicBrainz metadata system (conceived as a free and open replacement for the now-proprietary CDDB database.) We're also talking about a peer-based voluntary payment system so that fans can pay the artists directly - lots of info about this idea at Potlatch.net
We have to make sure that the RIAA parasites don't succeed in insinuating themselves between artists and audiences in the P2P space. Obviously they're going to continue to make obscene amounts of money either way, what they fear is a lack of control over what we choose to listen to and to support. So let's keep this freight train rolling - so long Napster, it was fun while it lasted...
It's simple. Napster sold out and I'm moving to OpenNAP servers.
And if they ban OpenNAP there's always FreeNET. The greedy capitalist record bastards can't stop us! We are the future!
Did anyone notice that BMG will be giving Napster a loan? Here's my theory:
Napster & BMG will develop a fee-based service for high quality MP3s. BMG will mandate a subscription fee that is unreasonable in the minds of most people. Very few people (if any) will join pay-Napster. With so few people paying for it, Napster won't be able to pay their bills or the loan back. Eventually Napster (the company) will go bankrupt and BMG will declare (enthusiastically) that the only reason Napster existed was for "pirates" to get free music. Selling music over the internet just doesn't work. BMG will claim that they tried to work along with Napster, but the business model was flawed from the beginning.
That's my prediction. Maybe I'm just too cynical.
This is supposed to be great art. So why does it look like a bunch of decapitated naked people? -- Calvin
Once the novelty of Napster wears off, and since they are paying to use the service, users will demand high-quality MP3s from trusted sources, instead of slow downloads from some guy who didn't even get all of the song ripped. So naturally the music publisher will supply them. And people will mostly download from the music publisher. Napster will turn from a peer-to-peer network into a client-server network, similar to what eMusic has done with flat-rate unlimited MP3 downloads, except with a proprietary browser (the Napster client). Big publishers will get a piece of the fees and lots of exposure, but indie artists looking for exposure will be shut out of both exposure and fees.
So is this good or bad? I personally like the idea of a centralized place to get MP3s, with guaranteed quality. I don't want to download them from my neighbor if I can't tell ahead of time what the quality is.
But I also don't like the idea that an indie publisher or individual will have to pay to put their songs on Napster, their fans will pay to download them, and BMG gets money both ways.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Here's what EXACTLY needs to happen for me to support this:
1) Access can't be to JUST BMG's "active catalogue". The whole reason I (and many many others) use Napster is for those hard-to-find songs, the ones that have been out of print.. the ones I can't get anywhere else except through Napster.
2) They MUST allow for some sort of short term "try-out period" for songs... That would give you more incentive to check out new things (risk free). I mean, how often does it happen that you download a song only to find out that it's not what you thought it was? (I know, I know, you should check DURING the download...) If the "rights management" system gave me an hour or so to decide whether to "keep" the song, it would deal pretty well with that issues, I think.
Those are just my 2 cents worth...
It's not surprising that this has occured.
Expensive lawsuits, big profits, long-term royalties, easy option for a competing industry-sponsored service to be created (and they've got the best collection of us all!) and wipe them out....
The only way they could have continued is to join up with the industry. And there's the added bonus of getting to cash out at a very young age for Shawn. Hopefully they'll keep a brain and make the costs of the subscription service low, and also make sure that the quality of the files they provide is high (not just sound quality, but id3 tagging and file naming and organization).
Time will tell.
Given enough hydrogen, just about anything is possible.
The protocol is already widely used and there are so many open servers out there that have no association to napster(tm) that it is ridiculous to think this will slow down the exchange of music across the internet. It will only take time for all of those windoze users to figure it out and get napigator or some other variant. If you are looking for alternatives then by all means go to napigator.com or run a *nix and get gnapster, knapster or even the CLI based napster client because all of them have OpeNAP support built into them. But I have a feeling that the P2P networks are gonna feel a strain from the swamp of 56k-ers that are gonna flood the net since they are seeing napster go away(or free anyway). Only time will tell. I for one am staying underground and I am not paying a single dime for something I can get for free. If an artist wishes to break out of the record label regime and run things different..hell I will pay a buck for a cd of mp3s. I reward innovation.
from the cnet article Executives said they would not guarantee access to the full Bertelsmann catalog because they are relying on individual Napster members to provide and store all of the files. The file-sharing model puts much of the burden of distributing files on people with fast connections and large libraries of music. Whether those people will happily spend money on a service that turns them into unpaid BMG distributors remains to be seen. The companies failed to explain how customers would be prevented from making membership-only material downloaded onto their PCs freely available to others.
Nothing, i won't be using napster once they try to assess a charge.
I personally believe that a subscription model has the potential to improve the quality of Napster's service, not even considering the extra funding for Napster themselves.
The face of Napster could change significantly, if its users were limited to those who were willing to pay a small fee — roughly 1/4 of a CD at standard retail price. Not a whole lot to a music fan. I certainly don't mean to disparage casual music fans; but the facts are that Napster is a music-sharing service. The better the give/take ratio, the better the service. It's that simple.
In fact, reducing the number of "leech" users may actually increase the selection available on Napster, just among the remaining users. Think I'm crazy? Then consider that I moved about 80% of my ~40GB MP3 library in directories that aren't shared. Granted, legal threats were a factor in my decision; but by far, the biggest factor was that Napster was becoming unusable for me. I always loved it when somebody downloaded one of my files; I really enjoy spreading good music. But inevitably, within a few minutes of logging on, my DSL line would be uploading so much that not only could I rarely download anything faster than 1 kb/s, but neither could the dozens of people downloading from me. If the average user shared more files, there would be less of a burden put on those of us who would like to share a large collection.
Now, consider that I'm not the only Napster user who would contribute more files to the library if the give/take ratio were improved. A lot more files. Some files that probably aren't available anywhere on Napster right now. I know this for a fact, because I have many friends who, like me, are completely insane music/MP3 fans. Most of them have done the same thing with their libraries. And I seriously doubt that I and my friends are the only ones.
Other improvements could happen, too. Overall connection speeds could improve, as downloads would be spread among a larger group of users, instead of targeted to a few with large libraries. A bigger section of Napster users might be the sort who maintain their shared directories: removing truncated, corrupt, or low-quality files; naming files something easy to decode and search; and possibly even creating easy-to-navigate directory trees. I imagine there are other potential improvements that could happen.
Obviously, I don't know for sure what would happen to Napster if it switched to a subscription model, and there are plenty of other factors to be considered in such a decision. But Gnutella provides a good warning about what could happen if it continues the way it is now. It's sad, because the Gnutella concept is brilliant, but the biggest problem with actually using it is that the network is too slow to justify the narrow selection available. This was easily explained by a study I saw recently, which showed that an alarming percentage of Gnutella users share little or nothing at all on the network. Granted, Gnutella's network design amplifies this problem; but, as shown above, Napster certainly isn't immune to the consequences of the same problem.
P.S. To those who think everyone will switch to another "free" service — have you actually tried them lately? And furthermore, what makes you think those other services won't follow Napster's lead — especially if it's the only established way to prevent a legally forced shutdown?
Being a Napster user, I like the service being free.. duh! Who doesn't want a free MP3 trading service? With Napster starting to charge, lots of people will be detered, because they don't want to pay for a subscription to pay for a subscription to download? And how do they plan in setting this all up? I don't see how it'll work, but, that's their problem.
Damn, I just installed the napster client yesterday because a friend was telling me about it... (previously I'd just rolled my own mp3s off my cds, but she said napster was a good resource for rare mixes that I'd have a snowball's chance of finding in the US or in print at all)
Just goes to show that when you wash your car it rains and that the best way to summon a public bus is to light up a cigarette... :-)
--
News for Geeks in Austin, TX
Now we can pay to share our hardrive space and bandwidth!! Will we get discounts if we share more?
So how/who will provide the music?
I assume that as it stands, only BMG artists will be allowed on napster. This basically is a big "fsckyou" to all the indie artists or those who aren't signed with a major label.
Also, what about incomplete downloads, poor encodes, or mislabeled songs?
These are probably all questions asked a billion times or more, and will see if this lives or dies.
Drive space won't be an issue, no. But bandwidth might be. When you download a song, you probably shoot for the fastest person that has what you're looking for. If BMG's giant file server has a tiny pipe, great, we can download this song, but at 348 bytes a second, I'm probably not going to...
It's kinda funny, the same people everyone was once fighting for (napster) is now making a deal with the devil (self explanatory). For some, $5 will be fine a month (morality and such). I, on the other hand will still use filenavigator (http://www.filenavigator.com) with opennap servers (http://opennap.sourceforge.net). But...Napster still hasn't won. They still have 4 other record companies to deal with.
As Hemos said before, conceptually this is fine!
There is a fine line between being a cultivated citizen and being someone else's crop. - A. J. Patrick Liszkie
Absolute and insufficient.
It's entirely possible that what you say will happen will, in fact, happen. The odds of it happening are quite good. I'm not denying that.
But it doesn't have to be that way. If I can think of a way to make it work, Napster sure as hell can. Right now they're stuck between a rock and a hard place. They're facing Congress and the courts and it looks like they're going to get a reaming any way they turn. They could stick it out and take the moral high ground, but the MaCarthy era showed us the wisdom of that approach. So they're taking the only path that seems open to them in an effort to preserve themselves.
It sucks. I freely accept that. But it doesn't mean they can't find a way to turn it around for something better, if they play it right. However, if you want to be completely antagonistic and uncompromising, you don't have to play along. If enough people like you decide that any compromise is too much compromise, then whatever good can come out of this will fail and the whole thing will go belly up.
Sounds just as bad, to me. You can't win every battle. Sometimes you have to take what you get and work with it, to keep trying to work toward something better. I say Napster is doing this, if they have the foresight to do so rather than just crawl into a hole and die. Time will tell.
There is no problem which cannot be resolved by the judicious use of firepower.
Just use Gnutella (or, better yet, a nicely done version of Gnutella without the porn, and only for mp3s).
Free Anne Tomlinson!!
$5 to BMG
$5 to SONY
$5 to Virgin (well I dunno if this is on of the big ones, there are all so inbred anyway).
etc....
The point is: does the price go up everytime napster cuts a new deal? I assume so since there is more value to the consumer.
Another point is: I am not interested in supporting the people who bring me the music. I am interested in supporting the people who MADE the music.
If I made a website/file-sharing system/whatever tommorrow that allowed any artist to put there songs up as mp3's and get paid directly for them a large percentage probably would. Unfortunately those wonderful people that bring us the music won't allow them to deal directly with the consumer because they become irrelevant. If this were allowed MP3.com would probably be the busiest site on the net. This is all rehash, but it has to be said again.....
Gnutella is useless, because it's getting spammed like mad ...
Is anyone working on an OSS Napster like service?
Before you email me, remember: "There is no god!"
I tend to think that deals like this that require a paying subscriber base will be more of a threat to Napster's survival than the lawsuits...
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
Note that the article says that Napster will develop a membership-based service, not that they will end their free service.
They may do both in parallel, shutting down the free service only if they are legally required to. Or, they may just cripple the free service in some way... In any case, people are just going to jump ship to Scour, MX, Gnutella...
This is actually a stupid move on the part of the music industry, since, without a legal precedent, they'll have to jump through all the hoops again to bring down those other services. If they'd just stuck with their guns and brought down Napster, they'd have much more clout to threaten those other services.
Don't forget asdf@asdf.com (poor bastards at asdf.com)
Seriously, nobody should be giving out their real address ANY place on the net.
Either you should make it up, or if it needs to be valid (for confirmations, reciepts, unlock keys, etc) it should be either be a junk hotmail account or Sneakemail.com.
Sorry this is off topic, but the originator of this thread was just asking for my standard lecture.
Sneakemail is to spam filters what an ounce of prevention is to a pound of cure.
Oh well, sorry for my rant. I just don't see what the end of the RIAA has to do with music. No more boy bands, no more sixteen year olds ...in ...catsuits ...um, wait...
My .02,
My .02,
zencode
iactivist.org/jason
What you meant to say was: "Napster will become subscription based."
Saying Napster will now be subscription-based is misleading, as it infers that the current Napster will go away. This is not the case.
This a one of the ways napster could become allright in the eyes of the RIAA. This does not answer the question since this is a paid service will people who have lots of harddrive space and bandwidth will get some type of discount or compensation for thier resources?
I can see that this action will put a great deal of pressure on alternative forms of p2p file sharing, but I do not think they can handle the load or the legal challenges? Each of the existing alternatives has it own drawbacks (central servers, poor scaling, etc.).
My question: Would it be possible to create a module that adds p2p capabiites to apache? The client software could submit the lists of shared songs via standard http POST methods. Dynamic URL rewrites and apache's proxy capability could protect the users' identity. The song indices could be distributed among the servers via the Gnutella model. Since web servers tend to have higher bandwidth than internet users, the scaling problem that Gnutella has with low bandwidth could be alleviated.
Users would only need to connect to the server of their choice (Or specially tailored search engines located convienently outside the US) to access the service. This could open the server operators up to legal action, but with widespread adoption and a lack of logging, prosecution of the actual offenders would be problematic at best.
As an additional bonus, since all the traffic would be through standard web ports and to random servers, firewalling would be impossible.
Just a random thought I had.
The Revolution. Now available as a convienent six tape series from PBS.
I just gave BMG your e-mail address.
I guess this is Gnutella's cue to officially come into the free music scene?
If Gnutella can't do it, I'm sure someone out there is already devising a plan to do it right this time.
Think about that.
If the court finds in favor of Napster, this opens up a lot of potental to 'free' IP that has otherwise been sat on. Copying CDs to MP3 and posting on the net? Legal. Copying DVDs to VCD format, and posting freely on the net? Legal. Copying ebook text and posting to the net? Legal. (Of course, assuming you didn't hack any copyright controls).
Think about that from RIAA, MPAA, e-book publishers pov for a moment.
This is a very scary and eye-opening case. I can see two things happening. Either the remaining RIAA groups feel they have a win that they will stick it out and make sure to get a ruling, or they will drop the case and join BMG in the service. In the former case, if they get the win, it would be unlikely that Napster would win in the SC, and RIAA would be able to relax. However, if they lose, and on any appeals, the entire structure for how RIAA, MPAA, and those others make money is gone. And given their actions, they are aging, and may not be able to survive such a blow. [*] In the latter case, with the threat of such a decision gone for the moment until they figure out how to sue Gnutella, that situation of IP opening up will not come to pass and they can rest easier. If I were RIAA, I know which way I would go. In addition, current law offices that specialize in copyright and music industries indicate that Napster's defense is very strong, including the fact that non-commercial sharing is specifically referred to and protected in the DMCA.
[*] Mind you, the decision could specific relate only to musical works. Movies and such may not be covered, but even with a little break like music, the other art forms are only another lawsuit away.
I'm excited about a member-based Napster, I'd gladly pay a small fee to get high quality recordings. But there is something to be said about opening up the IP that is controlled by a few, and I would be willing to have that over the member-based Napster.
"Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
"I can see my house from here!" - ST:
What is he supposed to say? "Thank God these guys were willing to deal, or else I'd really be fscked?"
Not bloody Likely
So there I was. Naked. In a refrigerator. With a potroast on my knees. Smokin a cigar. That's when it got REALLY weird.
If not, then artists are still not getting compensated for their work that appears on Napster. It would be interesting to see if some of the bands find this agreement insufficient and still sue Napster.
This is going to suck. Here's why.
If Napster is no longer available for free (actually no acticles state their free service is ending), then you can forget about having a program you can use to find any song, anytime.
The beauty of napster is the sheer number of songs available. If there is a membership thing implemented, then a lot less people are going to be connected, sharing their files. The huge selections of songs is going to melt to a tiny fraction of what it once was.
This is truly the end of something great.
What I want to know is, where can I trade OGGs? Not Napster, that's for sure.
Aside from obvious privacy concerns with user registration and Napster working together with record companies, the file base will shrink significantly. People are deluding themselves if they think paying $4.95 a month will let them keep using Napster as it is now.
Napster's main strength is its huge user and file base. Even if you're willing to pay $4.95 a month, I'd guess 90% of Napster users aren't. This means that finding anything obscure or non-mainstream will be a LOT harder, since 90% of the file sharers have left(and hopefully migrated to Gnutella!)
Without the huge user base and diversity of files they provide, searching for anything other than a radio-played single will be futile. This of course favors the major record companies and media conglomerates, which I doubt BMG would mind one bit... The question is how long before they institute a per-song charge? They already have some sort of automated credit card billing system to collect your $4.95 each month.
A more important question is, will anyone care, or will we all have left BMG/Napster in the dust and be sharing the love through gnutella, MX, opennap, or whatever?
To: Director of IT operations.
For various reasons that have come to my attention, I believe we may need to add more USENET servers. Based on our market share and other data, I believe we can anticipate a dramatic increase in USENET traffic, especially in the binary groups. Some of the other managers and I had a meeting this afternoon and discussed the possibility of blocking the binary groups, but decided that in order to provide our customers the level of service to which they are accustomed, that should not be done. So, add some more USENET servers. If you have any questions, you know where to reach me.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Sure Napster can go to a subscription business model. But the the only thing attracting users to Napster rather than MP3.com is the fact that it's free. It'll be a matter of weeks before someone develops another napsterish server/software.
(Those CD clubs are nasty I was a member of Columbia House for about a year, six or seven years ago. I cancelled. To this day, I still get snail-mail and even phone calls every few months. Talk about thick-headed. Just imagine if they had my e-mail address... *shudder*)
---------///----------
All generalizations are false.
--
I like to watch.
Yet again we seem to be seeing the people who claim to be protecting their work rubber-stamping a company once they see they can make money out of it. Does Shawn Fanning really not see the irony in saying 'I am excited that Bertelsmann appreciates and values the uniqueness of the community Napster users have built.' of a company that is currently suing them.
So yet again we're being told that the only way we're allowed to have MP3s is if we personally encode them on our computers. I thought we were all supposed to be moving to a new computer model where the desktop computer and the Internet are inseparable and complement one another. Evidentally not.
I agree with you about the need for guaranteed quality. What I would like even more, is a system that used a peer-to-peer network to share bandwidth so that if I want to d/l a song, and twenty hosts have it, they'll each send me *some* of it, until I have all of it. Think load-sharing on a much more fine-grained basis. -jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
yes, opennap, you can find almost as many songs.
They (Napster CEO and Bertelsmann CEO) said that Napster will continue to serve files for free to users, and that they will pose no limitations on that. They will offer an additional service, giving users the possibility to download "high quality MP3 from the BMG catalog (and the catalogs of willing partners)" paying a fee. Now, this raises a few interesting questions: 1) How many people will choose to pay for a song when they can have it for free, even if the recording isn't so good (which i doubt, 'cause on Napster there are plenty of perfect recordings). Maybe they're going to filter files in the free section, limiting availability to those of low quality? 2) What will prevent me from downloading an "high-quality MP3" and post it in the free zone? Do you have any insight?
I think this is going to make many people move to distributed file trading systems such as GnuTella.
After all, how many of us pay (directly) for search engine use ?
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
Not going to be popular, but it's pragmatic. It ensures their survival. Expect widespread "sharing" anyway, tho.
--
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Why the Hell did this get modded down? It's the truth and you know it.
This is a manual virus. Copy it to your sig and help me spread!
But until they reveal more about their business model, it's too late to cry foul, bemoan corporate sellouts, cheer victory, or predict demise. I mean, come on... everyone knew Fanning was going to parley Napster's huge user base into something profitable sooner or later...
We don't even know how the big record houses are reacting to this... it's just too early!
I can see the fnords!
Napster is dead! Long live Napster! The only way to insure that a Napster-like service is available and it is not overwhelmed by corporate american it through the creation of an open source application that is easy to use. By easy to use i mean something that your joe-blow average win-mac user can install and use. It has to be at least as easy to use as Napster though it would be helpful if it was even easier to use. There are a lot of loudmouth members of slashdot that say open sourcing will solve all the problems in the world, and also a lot of people who boast about their skills. If we can find enough people who are members of both groups maybe something productive can come out of this Napster fiasco.
The only paragraph mentioning subscriptions it this:
Bertelsmann's forward-thinking approach will enable the new Napster membership-based file sharing service to become an important community for artists, record companies and consumers. BMG, as a leader in the online space, supports an array of secure, digital distribution alternatives that respects copyrights, including file sharing, downloads and subscription services.
which talks about BMG having expertise in subscription based services, and does not link this fact to Napster.
To be fair, the press release doesn't say Napster won't ever be subscription based, but it doesn't say it will either.
--
...or am I missing something?
how the hell can napster cahrge me for something that a friend of mine is hosting on his machine? sure napster offers a directory of who has certain songs, but they don't hold these songs, until they host all the songs on their own servers they can't charge me a single penny.
If today someone released a (verified) picture of Al Gore having gay sex with George Bush Jr., would Ralph Nader then win the election? This is purely hypothetical, of course.
As many people have pointed out, this would essentially be Napster/BMG making money by us letting other people suck *our* bandwidth up. Gee, thats a system and a half.
This still doesn't help find out which mp3's are legal and which ones arent, or where to get high quality ones from?
The only way I can see this working that doesn't suck is if we get a new user "BMG" which sits on every napster server with a huge connection and acts as an official server for the high quality BMG legal mp3's.
Of course they'd rather make money while letting us do all the work and incur all the costs.
Wow, Capitalism sucks.
-- "So they told me that using the download page to download something was not something they anticipated." - Bill Gates
One question that nags me is "where will the BMG catalog be hosted?"
I would hope that if I am paying a fee for this new service, then I will be guaranteed to find a high quality recording of the songs I am looking for. This means BMG/Napster needs to set up some big honking file servers of their own for me to use.
If, however, BMG is just going to dump the catalog on Napster and let the peer-to-peer network take care of hosting it, where is the value? Can I charge BMG for hosting their songs? If others are paying Napter/BMG to download a song, and that download actually uses my resources, how am I compensated?
I'm wating for a lot more detail on this before passing judgement.
"Tomorrow's forecast: a few sprinkles of genius with a chance of doom!" - Stewie Griffin
Let me get this straight, Napster is gonna charge me money to download songs from other peoples machines?
Great Idea!
RedHerring 's article, Excite's copy of Reuter's coverage, and Zdnet's article, not to mention CNN and the rest.
It's hard to say why the internet press is jumping all over this one: is it to appeal to their target audiences which include mp3 snarfers or is it just a big human-interest story, in the way Time and Newsweek and all the dead-tree rags have covered it. But at least Napster's demonstrated one thing: even people who aren't willing to pay for their music can still provide the eyeballs for banner revenue models. And ultimately, that's the only way any of these consortia will be economically viable.
-- Anne Marie
German media giant Bertelsmann, parent of music label BMG, has announced an alliance with Napster. Bertelsmann will provide money for Napster to change to a pay service in return for equity in the company, and will make its catalogue of artists legally downloadable.
Besides the obvious "this-is-the-end-of-Napster-as-we-know-it" what could this mean for the other p2p programs? I'll tell you. The RIAA police (aka FBI) will continue to confiscate computers, continue to violate civil rights and continue to criminalize file sharing. As long as IP laws are written by content providers we're just gonna get fucked harder and harder and harder...
BOSTON SUCKS!
Wonder if this will affect opennap and the like. If napster goes to ONLY subscription based, who will we use next?