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.
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 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
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.
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
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
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.