Slashdot Mirror
Napster Clawing Back
D Anderson n'Swaart writes: "As the BBC reports in this article, Napster is set to return shortly, as a subscription-based sharing service, a concept facing a less-than-rosy future. The report gives a brief history of Napster, and the current state of the various lawsuits that were brought against it. The briefs: Napster is going to have to fork over a total of around $36M USD, $10M of which is downpayment on future royalties." And whatAnotherAolUser writes that the company "agreed to pay $26 million to settle a copyright lawsuit with songwriters and music publishers, and to make royalty payments to the writers and publishers once it started a fee-based service." Guess it depends where you start counting.
Please, please let it be. It just wants to rest peacefully.
At least they didn't take the typical dot-com role and just close shop.
A year ago I would have said nobody will pay for that service. But now I think enough time has elapsed and enough other free services have gone under, that they maybe be able to get a user base going again.
I'm frustrated enough right now with the dot-coms and the ever slowing gnutella network, that I may just pry my wallet open to get something I want, when I want it, without having to pay for stuff I don't want.
Possibly user-added ratings of some kind...? User commentary, something that would create a real community around the music. Or, some kind of mechanism for recommending music that you would like. For example, I like a particular style of Irish music. If Napster could come up with a way of RECOMMENDING music to me based on one particular song or set of songs, or perhaps based on the fact that I share certain likes with other people, that would be a worthwhile service. Then napster wouldn't be a file-sharing system... it would be a file-recommendation system... and with millions of files out there, a recommendation system would be worth its weight in gold. Its value would increase with every additional person in the system, too...
The "Napster" name is still very well know. If you say "LimeWire" or "Morpheus", most people have no clue what you're talking about. Say "Napster" and everybody knows it's about getting music. In the popular press, these terms are synonyms.
When there's an agreement, it will be with a big artictle in every computer-related publication. It will most likely even be on the TV news. All saying "Napster/music downloading is now legal".
Napster will start a mass marketing campain. Paying computer magazines and ISPs to include their software on their CDs. They probably won't have problems with including it anyway, as it'd be legal. Combine that with paid-for nice reviews, and banners and the usual stuff, and you'd be suprised how quick the comeback of Napster can be. Even as a paid service.
These are the practical things that would catch the attention of Joe Consumer.
The new version of Napster will not be using MP3's, it will be using a new proprietary format called .NAP. This will of course include all the rights management feature that you know and love. Why would anyone use this? I have no idea.
As an aside, a service that I would be willing to pay for is My.MP3.com. I loved that service when it was fully operations with ALL my cd's. Since a lot of my CD's have been removed and that it randomly asked to put the cd's in again I find it useless.
I own over 200 CD's and I bought quite a few from listening to music I found off bearshare (and previously Napster). Why don't they get it?
$_='while(read+STDIN,$_,2048){$a=29;$b=73;$c=142;
Pay the musician directly!
This hurts the no-talents (Spears, etc.) that are basically ENGINEERED by media execs, and require a massive team of techies to put up the illusion of musical talent.
Real musicians that play in front of real people who appreciate their real talent should have no problem with mp3's. People still pay to experience live music.
I wish MY favorite bands would adopt the "play in real life" spirit that these other guys have. Unfortunately, I just don't dig on the Greatful Dead's or Phish's particular musical style, and they seem like the only ones that do consistant touring.
I think it is important to distinguish between the file sharing application and the network that it serves. Napster's interface was so so, but the network beneath it was great! Tons of .mp3's due to pure volume of usage.
Some of the gnutella tools are great in their interface (way better than napster, IMAOO) but the underlying network just doesn't have as many users as Napster did. Napster was in the press every day. Hell, I had uncles and aunts that have never used a computer calling me up and advising they were using it! It was simple, simple is bliss for 95% of the PC population.
My point? Free is better (gnutella), but lacks the organization of a for-profit model. Hmmm, sounds like a very common thread around here...
So Britney would need the help of the record labels, and she would pay them for all the services you mention. Then her fans would pay her directly.
Or, the record label would evaluate her, as they do now, and sign her to a contract, as they do now. They would mix up her music and promote it and all that, and the fans would pay her directly, and then, as stipulated in her contract, she would give the labels their cut.
What's the problem?
--
Mod up a post Rob doesn't like and you'll never mod again
OK...
The only selling point.... The music we would download from napster would be completely legit downloads. No worries about wrong doing right?
Now for the nagative side of things...
First off, to keep everyone from distributing these nifty little music files it will most likely come in a protected propietary format. To play you must and most definately will pay. Napster will play it and maybe media player. Remember way back when... there was an article about napster licensing/writing some protected media format. Perhaps someone else can dig up the article.
Assumming they go for a protected media format(now dubbed pmf) there will most likely be a windows only client. I really hate OS lockins. Especially since I stream my mp3's to my workstations. (icecast/mp3) This pmf will probably not work with your existing mp3 player periphreals. (No more music for the car)
Just as everyone has pointed out. We are again likely to see a peer to peer network sharing. You have to pay to share your music.
Maybe I'm wrong, but these assumptions are based from logical guesses (human nature/greed).
"You should always go to other people's funerals; otherwise, they won't come to yours." -- Yogi Berra
IMHO, this Napster "pay-per-month" subscription model has very little chance of commercial success for several reasons.
1) The user base has already migrated to better networks (i.e. Kazaa, Morpheus, etc). The content available through these networks is free (as in beer) so it really makes no sense why everyone would "jump" back on Napster to pay for this very same content.
2) The whole idea of community and sharing is what made Napster popular. You were (by default in the software) sharing your music files with others in exchange for getting music files from them. The users provide the bandwidth, the storage, and the content. What exactly Napster would be providing in this "new business model", besides a simple directory service, is beyond me. Is Napster going to host MP3's on fast, high-availability servers and actually shell out some cash for bandwidth and storage space? Or is this another "let's charge for stuff that other people are giving away for free" business model?
I really don't see why anyone would pay to share their music files especially when there are better alternatives and really Napster isn't providing anything in exchange for that $10 (or whatever it may be) monthly fee. Plus, in the mind of most of my peers (college students), Napster has "sold-out" to the music industry and is probably the LAST place anyone would go to get music on the 'net.
I know they certainly won't be getting a dime from me.
Specifically, who will pay money to be granted the priveledge of serving up content? If I serve up more than I pull down over gnutella (which I do), why am I going to pay Napster to be allowed to do that for them?
Napster need me a lot more than I need them. I wonder if they realise that yet?
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.