Slashdot Mirror
Napster To Abandon MP3 For .NAP
simong writes "As reported in The Register Napster is to abandon the MP3 format for a proprietary .nap format being developed with Bertelsmann. " As Cliff pointed out "dirt.nap is about what Napster amounts to these days anyway." You can get more more information from Yahoo's Reuters feed.
With Kazaa being positioned as a good candidate for a napster replacement, quite a few people will end up with it. At least the mp3 sharing market has fragmented, otherwise we would have the successor to SamrtTags.
Chris Cothrun
Curator of Chaos
Bleh!
will there be the ability to do a conversion back to MP3 once you have it? This will severely limit the number of users from the non-standard platforms.
I know that the format will be easily cracked (as many people will mention on this thread today) and I know hardly anyone will use it (as more people will post), but for those people who are actually interested in it, would it actually be useful?
Most people download MP3's to burn to CD to listen to later. Would they at least convert to WAV to allow for burning?
(* Does WMA actually deliver on this promise of 1/2 filze size with superior sound? I've never messed with .WMA becase 1) Mirosoft is evil and I don't want them controlling my media and 2) MP3 is fine for me).
Wow, there's a technically informed decision. Frauenhofer isn't exactly a saint either. If you want to base your format on software politics, why aren't you using Vorbis?
--
I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
That's giving the customer what they want, for sure :)
Like it or not, MP3 is the standard, and people aren't going to change away from it unless another format allows greater benefits for the end user (better quality/compression ratio) or the other format is aggressively pushed by Microsoft (not that WMA isn't necessarily better than MP3, but I hardly expect Microsoft to let it succeed or fail on its own merits).
Nothing in file sharing is really going to change unless media companies really go after MP3 traders for their actions, which won't happen because of the massive potential backlash. You can destroy the Napster of the month for years, but all that will happen is people will trade underground the way they did before Napster made it so easy.
On the plus side, torpedoing easy-to-use file sharing programs is going to boost overall computer literacy, as people learn to track down their MP3s on Usenet and FTP sites and/or apply DeCSS-style cracks to the wide variety of "secure" music formats. If you think of the 'net as an ecosystem, the destruction of one of the larger trees in the forest is just causing explosive adaptation among Internet users. If the RIAA had been careful, they could have preserved Napster long enough to channel most of its users into more profitable channels. As it is, they've destroyed the biggest centralized point for MP3 trading, and they'll never have another chance to influence so many music traders at once again.
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
That's it. Napster is now a non-entity. I bailed when they started making it harder to use, locking out Napigator (or trying!) and removing all the songs I wanted to grab. I've moved on to AudioGalaxy, and I'll move on to something else when that bites the dust.
I don't really think there need to be any more Napster stories now. Because the plain and simple facts are, Napster no longer offers what people originally wanted to use Napster for. And it looks like it will be offering less and less in the future. I think it's finished.
--
Editor Emeritus and Senior Writer, TeleRead.org
But instead, they destroyed Napster and along with it their last chance to coopt the music-trading community.
Like that old guy said, If you strike [Napster] down, [the music-sharing community] will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine.
--
--
Mod up a post Rob doesn't like and you'll never mod again
Good point. Oh, uh, by the way, Microsoft Office has how many hundred million users?
:)
--
--
Mod up a post Rob doesn't like and you'll never mod again
It's an impressive feat to put the last nail in your own coffin while your on the inside!
\//
All these formats have a tough road ahead of them. .MP3 is so FIRMLY entrenched in the market that it could take years before people give it up, if ever:
.MP3. They know that all their software works with it, they know what to do with it, they are aware of its limitations, and they know how to work around them. Expecting people to jump ship to a new format, just because it is available, especially when it offers DECREASED flexibility is also foolish. Consumers seem more than happy with the compression and sound quality of MP3 - it would take something truly amazing to come along to convince them to change. WMA and its 1/2 file size (supposedly at the same quality *) doesn't seem to be doing it.
.WMA becase 1) Mirosoft is evil and I don't want them controlling my media and 2) MP3 is fine for me).
1) hardware: lots of people are selling hardware MP3 players for PDAs, Cars, pants pockets, and home stereos. Anyone who thinks consumers will throw these away so soon is foolish. Lots of people I know buy players that only play MP3. Many of these are not upgradeable. They will be around for a long time, and MP3 will be too.
2) software: lots of software already exists for ripping CDs into MP3s. iTunes has done wonders for introducing some of the less technical folk to digital music. Lots of people I know use musicmatch and realjukebox. These programs aren't going to magically stop working, and the MP3 files they produce won't either. Winamp, Musicmatch, iTunes, RealJukebox and their brethren will be around for a long time...
3) habit: people are used to
In conclusion, I don't see any reason people would leave MP3 for a new format any time soon. This i especially true for new formats with confusing DRM that restricts people from playing music whereever they go. Consumers don't want the hassle of backing up license keys to their music. They already bought it. Why do they need to license it?
(* Does WMA actually deliver on this promise of 1/2 filze size with superior sound? I've never messed with
Oh, and it isn't CD quality. That alone kills it. Whatever they charge must be lower than what a CD costs. Much lower.
And I want to know what their copy protection scheme is. I want to be able to download from my PC, transfer it to my laptop or .nap player, or burn it to my newly purchased CD-RW and eventually be able to play those files in my car during those long cross country trips when I pass through bum-f*** Kentucky and all I can get is Bluegrass stations and Baptist ministries.
And did I mention that I use linux as my desktop at home?
I buy CDs when I can. I used Napster to get maybe a handful of songs and wasn't enthused. If the record companies want to get a person like me to purchase songs off the Internet they must charge a reasonable price. And from where I'm sitting, even a buck is too much.
I don't want knowledge. I want certainty. - Law, David Bowie
Actually, yes, Napster have licensed Adobe's most advanced encryption technology. A ".NAP" is a
Tell your friends about xenu.net
Users to abandon .NAP for .MP3
More
while ( horse == dead ) { beat(); }
Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
The real tragedy of Napster is that we may never again have such easy access to the more obscure music that isn't currently "in print." In its heyday, Napster helped introduce me to some old jazz and blues recordings that I would never have been able to find in a record store.
Unfortunately, the court cases surrounding Napster have poisened the well to such an extent that I doubt that we'll ever see an "all music ever created" service again at any price.
** The opinions expressed here are my own, and do not reflect those of my employers - past, present, or future**
Slashdot: Yesterdays Register stories, today...
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
the first person to get their grubby hands on the .nap codec and encode any Metallica album.
That would be priceless.
"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a son-of-a-bitch." - Jack Nicholson
RIP Napster, we hardly knew ye.
Well, that would be anyone who has ever bought an MP3 player. Or used an MP3 encoder. Legally, you gotta pay Fraunhofer/Thompson for every player or encoder.
I'm amazed they got this far with as strict of a licence they have. Encoders like lame or bladenc are in reality, illegal to use unless you have a licence. So if you run Linux and burn MP3's, its likely you are breaking the law.
I'm surprised the Free Software community hasn't rallied more around Ogg Vorbis, given the harsh licencing of MP3.
No, Thursday's out. How about never - is never good for you?
If you don't have anything nice to say, say it often.
If you don't have anything nice to say, say it often.
- Ed the Sock
That's why letting people use their IP for free was the best thing that Thompson could have done.
Think about it.. people could already play their CD's on their computer, and they could even rip their CD's into wav files. So simply using MP3 encoders does not really add that much value to the average computer user's life. If the encoder wasn't freely available, the user base would be a lot less, and nobody would feel like they're missing out on anything.
However, Fraunhofer/Thompson has let encoders be freely available, and lots of people have lots of MP3 files. EVERYONE now knows what MP3 is, and wants to listen to their MP3's while jogging. And Thompson is making money on every single piece of MP3 hardware you can buy. Give away the razor (bladeenc) to sell the blades (hardware and commercial software).
By not suing their user base, they are actually making more money (and having their standard more widely adopted) then if they had "protected their IP more vigorously".
Everyone who advocates Digital Rights Management could learn a thing or two from their business model.
Because whether or not it is a proprietary format should have no bearing on whether it solves their alleged issues of outdated distribution methods, paying for songs they don't want to pay for, or whatever. In fact, I would expect that users who really want to pay for downloadable music should be largely indifferent as to whether the format is proprietary or not (again, assuming availability of players). Of course, I expect that most users here will NOT pay for a proprietary format, just as I expect most would also not pay for an non-proprietary format, because I strongly suspect the whole Napster/MP3 phenomenon is less about supposed 'civil disobedience' and claimed fair-use, then it is about getting something for nothing.
Given a reasonably level playing field, who would win a fight between a bear and a shark?
Why are the RIAA still hounding Napster when the game has clearly evolved on to the next level?
Napster is dead, long live OpenNap
How long will it be before Napster sues another company for copyright infringement?
--
Also in the news: Amiga Q2 gross profits up 40% to $39.50.
m00.