Slashdot Mirror
What Are Microsoft And Napster Talking About?
An Anonymous Coward points to this CNN article, writing: "look here, Microsoft and Napster are talking, looks like Microsoft is going to buy Napster." Actually, the story specifically says that Microsoft has rejected buying Napster, and that the ongoing secretive talks actually have another probable outcome: Microsoft's digital protection schemes for music files are a more likely point of confluence between the scrappy, beleagered protector of Internet Freedom and Goodness and, well, Napster.
Bill, I can't understand it, why you wont buy me
After all the things I've bought from you
I bought your Works and windows, put diamonds on your fingers (Diamond on your fingers)
And still you still won't buy, what am I to do
My girl uses Napster all the time
Napster all the time, Napster all the time
My girl uses Napster all the time
Napster all the time, Napster all the time
Ooh...hoo...hoo...
Napster all the time
She likes to use Napster all the time
Napster all the time
Ooh...hoo...hoo...
Napster all the time
She likes to use Napster all the time
Napster all the time
Bill, I seen you at the courts, just hangin' out and trollin'
You plead the 5th to every judge you see
You never come home at night because you're out controllin'
I wish you'd bring some of your doe home to me
But my girl uses Napster all the time
My girl uses Napster all the time
Napster all the time, Napster all the time
My girl uses Napster all the time
Napster all the time, Napster all the time
Ooh...hoo...hoo...
Napster all the time
She likes to use Napster all the time
Napster all the time
Ooh...hoo...hoo...
Napster all the time
She likes to use Napster all the time
Napster all the time
Ooh...hoo...hoo...
Napster all the time
She likes to use Napster all the time
Napster all the time
Ooh...hoo...hoo...
Napster all the time
She likes to use Napster all the time
Napster all the time
\\s0nGdEvIL\\
Microsoft: Ok, what's it gonna take for you to block all instances of the bootlegged copied of Bill Gates singing "Who Let the Dogs Out". Napster: $125 million dollars...... in quarters. Microsoft: Ok..... the 125 mil is no problem, the quarters part could take a while. So it's a deal? Napster: Sure. Microsoft: Now does that include blocking of B1ll G4T35 and other numerical representations as well? Napster: No. Microsoft: Damn.
Since MP3s were born Microsoft has been trying to rewrite the standard with their own technology. WMA was their answer, which, granted, provided better sound for the bandwidth cost. Could it be that they see Napster as the biggest proponent for the format that they would love to wipe out? Maybe they wish to buy it an either rewrite things to share WMAs, or throw it in the scrap heap... Interesting, and yet somehow scary...
(not a troll or a conspiracy theory -- just an observation)
Jethro
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.
I know this sounds trite, but I think we should all mark our calendars as today being the day that Napster finally sunk into the grave, or at least sunk into a coma from which it will likely never recover. Yes yes, people have been saying this for months in relation to other events surrounding Napster, and I am not saying that those claims weren't true. But today it has come to light that Napster is sleeping with the enemy from the technology side, not just the legal side. They now have absolutely no moral leg to stand on insofar as the "Free as in Beer" philophy goes.
Sad. There are alternatives available, to be sure, but none have the simplicity of Napster. I'm even having a hard time finishing my Bill Hicks collection, goddammit!
Side note: I think that we should push for legislation that allows for a person (or persons) to be designated as the "primary creator" of any given work, without possiblity of that role being signed over to an Evil Industrial Corporation. If at any time that person(s) or their heirs wishes to release the work into the public domain, they can. Or they could stipulate in their will that works X, Y and Z are in the public domain, but A and B aren't.
Too simple to work.
- Rev.I am beginning to see a pattern here.
.NET and Hailstorm for their authentication processes.
.NET, Hotmail, their other web services, and Windows Media Player) will allow for full Internet-based Digital Rights Management, with Microsoft acting as the central authenticating authority.
.NET to give all users of Microsoft Products a common Microsoft Services Bill. They will be able to handle micropayments because they will have themselves set up as a centralized billing authority for all premium web content. This will may include Office, Windows Update, Windows Media Services (which in Windows XP will expand this to high-quality video), MSN, and Hotmail premium services.
.NET will allow Napster to still have file sharing, but adds complete authentication services that the RIAA likes (note that I did not say couldn't be broken. I'd be stupid to think anything is uncrackable), and adds micropayments through Microsoft Billing Services.
:).
First, eBay signed up to use
Secondly, Microsoft integrated a complete Digital Rights Management system into IE 5.0 and above, with respective authentication in Windows 2000/XP, and a patch for Windows 98/Me.
If you don't believe me and have IE, go to Tools, Internet Options, Content Tab, Certificates, and click on the Advanced Button on that tab. When you look at Intended Purpose, you will see Digital Rights as a certificate option (among many other things).
Third, Microsoft is and has been in with the RIAA and assorted other agencies to promote Digital Rights, and has their own WMA format to do so. They can use certificates to provide strong authentication on media files.
Fourth, the Passport infrastructure that Microsoft is building (which encompasses
Fifth, they can also use their commerce infrastructure for micropayments, or leverage the common billing authority they are working on with
Fifth, bringing Napster aboard means that Microsoft can track all files, and therefore all users, by giving them a centralized Passport ID (which you already have). They will have the ability, in Windows 2000 and XP, to link that to a root certificate that identifies your computer, users on it, and files you have downloaded.
Napster will be still able to download large amounts of audio files if this strategy is going where I've taken it. However, they will not be file you can play. You will have to use the Passport infrastructure to pay for these files to listen to them. Integrating Hailstorm and
eBay is switching to the model too, which scares me in that many popular sites seem to be more than willing to cede control of user authentication to a central authority that I would never trust with my personal information. Yahoo does the same thing, but they don't associate a user with a machine, hardware, registered software products, or personal information to the level that Microsoft does.
Napster joining with Microsoft is a BAD thing. It's one more step for Passport/.NET/HailStorm before they end up controlling a large portion of the sites on the net through their services. That, and it would make Napster pay, which would only make Lars happy
I bet Microsoft is giving them advice.
Microsoft: "...and that's how we stole the idea for a GUI."
Napster: "Kinda like we let people steal music?"
Microsoft: "Sure. Now you should introduce some nasty bugs in your software, then charge $50 or more for an official upgrade."
Napster: "But our software is free??!?"
Microsoft: "Then just change your servers and make them break older versions."
Napster: "damn. That's genius."
Microsoft: "yea, wait till we see how we steal your software and 'invent' file sharing in Windows XP."
Chaos, Mayhem, and Destruction: Not
No, not the Napster Microsoft story it self, Timmy's comments showing he took the time and energy to read and analyize the story that was submitted.
Microsoft has a history of using their money to buy into markets. If they wanted to try to compete with the large labels in any way, this would be it.
Can you imagine U2's next album on the Microsoft label? Yikes!
The question is, which is worst? The current labels or Microsoft?
Too bad they're not doing it - it would be a very interesting battle.
MS: "All your MP3s are belong to us."
RIAA: "No, all your MP3s are belong to us."
MS: "NO!! All your MP3s are belong to us!!"
RIAA: "All your MP3s are copyright to us!!"
MS: "YOU are belong to us. How much?"
RIAA: "One legal threat and a dozen long drawn-out court battles!"
MS: "You are on the path to bankruptcy. You have no chance to survive make your time."
(Meanwhile Linux users watch the ongoing battle of the titans, consuming lots of popcorn and soda and cheering with joy.)
Men believe what they want. - Caesar
There will no doubt be ways--simple and easily accessible--around it. Microsoft and Napster can talk all they'd like and come up with as good sounding solutions as they wamt, but it would all just be lip service to an enraged RIAA. The upside may be that it would remove free music from the common websurfer, thus appeasing the industry and once again giving us geeks more power than the masses
Dance like you're hurt, Love like you need money, and work when somebody's watching.
-Scott Adams
If the economy is going down the crapper, wouldn't the use of free services go up? Or maybe people stopped using Napster once they cancelled their DSL subscription, because the economy is going down the crapper.
.
Advantages for Consumers
Digital distribution offers consumers a convenient way to access their favorite content at any time. Consumers will also be able to access higher quality media on the Internet because content providers using DRM will be more willing to make such content widely available. Also, the DRM licensing scheme protects consumers from inadvertently pirating a file: Consumers can be confident that the media they receive is authentic material, and they have acquired it in a legitimate manner.
Of course, this should read:
Advantages for Consumers
None.
sulli
RTFJ.
Yes, they will probably try to foist .wma's on the user base. No, they won't succeed, I don't think.
Repeat after me: flat rate, unlimited MP3 sharing or NOTHING. The model is ASCAP: royalties are apportioned by share of downloads.
(!MP3 || !unlimited || !flatrate) == !Napster.
sulli
RTFJ.
Whilst driving in my car, I had the following thought: Napster users get files from file sharing, not from other sources. And thus, they all have the same digital copy of the same song. You can see this effect any time you do a napster search for something common; say, bob dylan. Notice that 80% of the files will have the same bitrate, file size and title, and another 10% will be interrupted downloads of the above. Now, since all mp3 encoders are different and have a different approach to compression, even compressing the same track at the same rate on different encoders will produce different effects. This means that all those users had the same source, a sort of digital music analogy of mitochondrial Eve. If that first file is cooked or truncated or a special version, all users will hve those cooks or truncations.
So what does this mean? Well, if digital protection stops 95% of users from copying an mp3, it won't matter a pair od fetid dingo's kidneys to the music theft scene. One lucky champ will manage to get a decent sounding version somehow, and then everybody will trade that. In this scenario, copy prot only serves to slow down the trade of cds among friends, which most of the industry agrees should be encouraged (or at least not discouraged).
To Recap: Napster users aren't particularly picky and all tend to grab the first example of a track they find. Digital protection will serve only to alienate the end user, making him or her more reliant on Napster and less able to deal with his or her own music. Result: more Napster usage, further development of the music release scene and less money for the music industry (namely, the money spent on the copy protection infrastructure).
The only solution is freedom...I'm whistling "unforgiven" right now...
Hey freaks: now you're ju
In other news, "Farmers to use Foxes to guard Henhouses."
Napster just isn't an attractive property. With a deal price with 8 zeros after it, not to mention the potential of huge civil liabilities, no one is opening their checkbook. No surprise there.
This is actually interesting for two reasons: First, is napster persuing an approach where they seed all the content? It's certainly possible, as even if they included a WMA encoder and ripper in the package, one would assume that napster themselves would have to receive the file afterwards to encrypt it with microsoft's DRM tools, as I doubt they'd want to have the consumers generate the private keys for each encryption. Easier to just provide the files in the first place. But at that point, you have nothing more than a slow, complicated website that sells music on the back of my own bandwidth. I'm sure I feel like a lot of the rest of you: No Thanks, Napster.
Also interesting from the leak is that Napster is still shopping for technology for it's secure launch. I don't know about you, but when my "Summer launch" project is still selecting core technology in may, I'm not thinking about a summer launch anymore.
And while someone may point out that they could just be incorporating WMA playback into the engine... The windows media SDK's all have easy licensing terms and are downloadable over the Internet. No power meetings required.
This statement is blatently false. Did you even try to do any research? Perhaps you are thinking of Real? Microsoft's player, encoder, and DRM tools are all available for free. Almost everything can be instantly downloaded over the internet.
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsmedia/
If nothing else, maybe Microsoft could help Napster drag the whole thing out for a few years.
Such a merger would mean that Microsoft's software will have a little demon for a logo. How fitting...