Slashdot Mirror
Preview the New Napster
*ZiggyP0P* writes "Napster has finally released a preview/teaser of their new business model. Seems kind of sad that so much work will be done on something that noone will use. Quite interesting the part about their own file format..."
...yet another music file format. Why are they bothering?
Absurdity: A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with one's own opinion. -- Ambrose Bierce
That "nobody" will use the new service is a bit of a misstatement; I think that there will be a dedicated, but small user base - certainly, nothing like the huge usage Napster once had, but if they are able to create a subscription model that has a good enough balance between Cost/Hassle and Product that Joe User will choose it over messing about with AudioGalaxy, there will certainly be a user base.
Expect a PR campaign simultaneous to the release painting those who use Napster2 as hip, aware people while those who use others as music pirates.
The PR campaign won't be as scary as the legislative offensive launched to outlaw music trading apps without DRM... Napster and the industry will be on the same side.
In other words, this isn't the end of Napster, not by a long shot. And I suspect that, of all the fee-based services, the one from Napster will be more forgiving than the one that MS puts out.
It will fail for entirely different reasons. Primary amongst them is the fact that plain old mp3 files are all people really want. The hardware players people own play mp3s, the files they already have are mp3s, and and no one likes restrictions on copying their files.
Not that charging a monthly fee won't work against them, it will, but there are still a number of people who would gladly have paid a monthly fee for what napster WAS. What it has/will become is something no one wanted or asked for napster to make.
And the final problem is that by now a solid napster replacement in the form of Morpheus/Kazaa/grokster has come out. Napster waited way too long. They will always have a place in history, but they will never have a place in the future.
It also helps to secure legitimate venues where artists with the moxie to dive into the digital revolution headfirst instead of trying to control everything like their pig corporate counterpartts can debut their work yet still have a chance of seeing some return.
Any information distribution scheme that attempts to exploit the natural efficiencies of digital interchange is significant, since the copyright vultures are intent on preventing consumers and artists from enjoying these benefits - they want to cut their costs and gouge us for more. No legitimate competition means their monopolies remain unchallenged.
It Is the Nature of Information to Transgress Artificial Boundaries
Seems kind of sad that so much work will be done on something that noone will use.
Aw, poor Napster. Compare to the musicians' lament: Seems kind of sad that so much work will be done on something that everyone will steal.
*ZiggyP0P* writes "Napster has finally released a preview/teaser of their new business model . Seems kind of sad that so much work will be done on something that noone will use. Quite interesting the part about their own file format..."
Based on the quotes, it appears to me that the submitter was editorializing. I thought it was kinda funny myself. I think most readers realize they are going to get lots of editorializing on slashdot and, far from being impressionable nerds, they are ready to smack down dumb statments faster than I can reload.
Move on. There's nothing to see here.
MP3 is the standard, end of story. It's as much a standard as CD is. People will switch to .NAP, WMA, or even OGG ... oh, I dunno, just as soon as they switch to DVD-Audio, which will be well after we are all dead.
sulli
RTFJ.
One thing I didn't see addressed was how they are going to verify artist accounts. What's going to be in place to stop me from claiming I own "Who Let The Dogs Out".
That example is obviously extreme, but think about a no-name band that's trying to get started. They log onto Napster to register their band and find that somebody else has already claimed ownership of some songs they taped at a rehearsal.
I agree. Also, it will be nice to (hopefully) have correct ID3 tags. I look forward to being able to categorize by genre, name, style etc... The biggest worry I would have if I were them is someone RE'ing their file format and ripping all of their stuff to ogg's or mp3's... But then that's why there's a DMCA I suppose... (please do not take the last statement as an endorsement of the DMCA).
Andrew
Artists Get Paid
That would be a first. Courtney Love does the math. Sorry, but RIAA getting paid is way different from artists getting paid. (or were you being sarcastic?)
"that's not encryption - it's a new perl script that I'm working on..." - from some Matrix parody
That is what Napster will become if the new incarnation is widely adopted.
.nap files, making Napster the number one controller of digital rights on the planet.
.nap files so that compliance is 100% in that arena.
.nap DRM schema so that the other sharing services can be brought into line.
It will act like a massive distributed file converter, changing billions of MP3 files into
SONY made a small attempt at this with thier proprietary format and portable player that would not play MP3s. It came with software to convert your MP3s to thier format. It bombed.
The new Napster a brilliant idea on paper; use everyones bandwidth and existing mp3s to create a billion file pool of locked music upon which royalties must be paid, in a fully automated system.
The record companies save having to host and convert thier catalogues, and have a ready made system for effortlessly controlling billions of files.
Radio stations will then be compelled to play from
Next of course, they will attempt to legislate that all other formats comply with the
If we are not careful its "Bye Bye" clean Ogg Vorbis, and any other tool that helps you use and share music the way that you used to.
Lets see who signs up for it. What a story.
ATH0 Bitcoin: 1DnwFLXczVZV8kLJbMYoheUrpqHesjxrSi
One thing I don't understand: why keep harping about "sharing?" As I read this -- the new Napster FAQ -- you no longer share music, right?
You simply connect to Napster, Inc and grab your limited tracks? So this is essentially a crippled version of the "jukebox in the sky" model that everyone has been talking about but no one can implement?
I mean, this is like MP3.com back before they got bitch-slapped by the RIAA, right? When you stored your music in a "locker" and could access it anywhere? (Which remains an interesting idea, although I have no idea how it works now on MP3.com. Last time I checked, all but two of my songs were "locked down" and a pop-up let me know that MP3.com were "working diligently" to restore the music in my locker. Sorta like the same lame rhetoric that Napster has: "We're working as fast as we can to get you MP3s to play on your MP3 player.")
Now, okay, maybe someone can explain this to me. I don't mean this to be a troll or flamebait. I'm actually curious about this: why in the world would I *pay* Napster simply to get a crippled version of (take your pick) Morpheus?
Granted, it's nice to see that artists are going to get paid. But -- again -- maybe I'm missing something here -- but if the RIAA four years had foresight enough to deal with the MP3 onslaught in a shrewd, savvy way, we'd (a) have the great big jukebox in the sky at this point and (b) the artists (at this point) *would* be getting paid.
So by supporting Napster -- or MusicNet or PressPlay -- what I'm essentially doing is two things: (1) paying protection so as not to get fingered by the RIAA and (2) supporting the RIAA in their quest to *litigate* technology out of the marketplace.
This new Napster is "approved" technology where the old technologies are maverick technologies, unapproved, and therefore illegal?
I get the sense that Napster will become some sort of litmus test for the RIAA. It's going to be one of the incubators (MusicNet and PressPlay being the others) to see how profit can be derived from on-line music.
And again, I got no problem with giving artists their fair-share, but I'm very uncomfortable with the RIAA being in the middle.
What I'd like to see is a Napster that takes the RIAA out of the equation. I'd like to be able to give Bob Dylan or whomever my five cent listening fee and know that it's going into Dylan's pockets. I don't want some fat-cat exec skimming 4.5 cents from that nickel in order to support his Lexus habit or the fact that he or she has to pay rent on his overbig house in the Hamptons.
Napster? PressPlay? Forget it.
I'm all for giving the artists a cut of the subscription.
Huh? I'm lost. You're not giving money to the artist. You're giving money to the RIAA and the music monopolies. In the end, the artists might get $0.00000000021 from your sale.
You want to support the artists and screw over the RIAA? Download the MP3 and cut them a check or at least a $5.
Zodiac Survey
Wow, do the math, If I could generate revenue from 1/100th of Napsters old users, I'd do it. IIRC, thier peak number of users was over 1.5 million. 1/100th of that is 15k. Lets say the "small monthly fee" is 5 bucks. 75k a month shouldn't be bad if they have any management skills at all. Thats 900 large a year for having somebody pay you 5 bucks a month to provide your company with hard drive space.
You are right in that it probably won't work, but it's got to be worth a shot.
If it ain't a Model M, it's a piece of crap.
Good point. After I read the FAQ on the new system. I first thought was I need to get my hands of one of thier files. But to do that I would have to pay to use their service. Even if the quality of the music was very high (they say it may be of limited quality due to licence issues), the only reason I would bother with it, is if I just got over curious about thier crypto scheme. I really don't think they will have much to worry about.
I doubt that. There is a chance that millions of users will fall for that stupid system as long as bertelsmann convinces Microsoft to ship it as the default filesharing tool (or mediaplayer whatever they call it) in their next OS Version.
I experience stuff like that in my everyday work, watching people use all the default tools MS ships. Why is FTP something most Windows Users never heard of? Because there is no big FTP Button on their default desktop installation.
I promise you if Bertelsmann manages to get that thing in the next Windows Version it will become terribly popular. And with Napster beeing the name they heard of Kazza/Morpheus and all the others will be in serious trouble as soon as they're being sued. Just as Napster was. Or would you really have imagined that noone will know Netscape in 2002, back in 1996?
Just my theory...
cu,
Lispy
I'm still amazed that people believe record companies are synonymous with recording artists and that record companies are there to help the artists and make them rich.
Each CD has 100 points. Then those 100 points are divided up amongst everyone involved. Each point is worth a varying number of cents, depending on the cost of the CD and how much it cost to produce that one CD. Currently, I think the average CD comes out to about $9 (9 cents per point, then).
The recording artist gets 10 points, if they are very lucky. So for every record, they make potentially 90 cents.
If an artist becomes gold (500,000 CD's sold, I believe) they'll have about $450,000. Out of that $450,000 their agent will take a cut. At best, you're looking at 10%. Now the artist is down to approximately $400,000.
Now the artist has to repay the record company for the cost of the album's production, probably the cost of any video and miscellanious things such as advertising (in some cases). We'll say they got a steel on the studio recording for $20,000 and an extremely cheap $200,000 video. Now they are down to $180,000 at best.
Of this $180,000 they will have to pay for a lawyer to help with the legal end of business. Maybe they get a deal at $20,000. Now they're down to about $180,000.
Next, they have to pay taxes. On $180,000 probably near 50%. They have $90,000 left.
Assuming the record company has been lenient with them (record companies like to keep running tabs on EVERYTHING the artist causes as an expense so that they can keep the artist in their pocket) they've earned a cool $90,000 for becoming a gold record artist and selling $9,000,000 worth of albums (not counting whatever money they brought in through other means for the record companies).
Now, let's say that the artist isn't just a solo act. Let's say they're a band. They've got a drummer, a vocalist/guitar player, a bass player and a keyboard player. Now they divide that $90,000 up and have earned a cool $22,500 each.
This is how, very easily, a popular recording artist could earn less than someone pulling in minimum wage at a local fast food joint. In fact, they wouldn't even be breaking out of middle-class income unless they were selling well over 5,000,000 units per year.
Every artist, including those who *have* made it huge, will confirm this. Only the rarist exceptions become millionaire superstarts living in fat ass mansions and gold-plating every surface in their house (Madonna, Michael Jackson, Sting, Aerosmith, etc).
So I would say that the record companies are indeed a great evil. They have no interest in caring for the artist or treating them fairly. They're worse than any used car salesmen or ambulance chasers. They take someone else's talent and exploit them. And how can they do this? Because they maintain control of all of the production and distribution channels for the artist. They also keep the world in the dark-age of copyright and intellectual property abuse. If you want your music on the radio or in a store, you have to sell your soul and the rights to your music to the record companies.
Now, imagine that the artist has direct access to their listeners. Instead of taking 90 cents on a CD, they could take many times that still afford to pay their agent, lawyer, production costs and afford advertising. Further, they could maintain complete control over the ownership of their lyrics and music and even their own name.
It doesn't take a multi-billion dollar industry that takes a 90% cut to cash checks.
I know the labels do more than that, but for a small independent artist in the Internet age, the record labels are quickly becoming (or have become) obsolete. I buy all my music legitimately, but it sometimes seems kind of pointless WRT doing it to support the artists since most of the money goes to some faceless corporation that is only trying to maintain the status quo of its monopoly on distribution.
That's why I like to patronize labels like Robert Fripp's Discipline Global Mobile, which allows the artists to maintain their own copyrights. Imagine that. You struggle to make some good work, the record label helps you to publish and market it, you give them their cut, but you still own the work. I'm sure Hilary Rosen would call that communism.
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
She is involved in a heavy court battle with the surviving members of Nirvana. Why would they do that and involve scores of well paid lawyers, if the contracts really paid artists practically nothing?
People use the new Napster, and the RIAA make money where they wouldn't have otherwise.
People don't use Napster, and the RIAA claims we are a bunch of pirating hoolagins and therefore justifies more laws and restrictions.
Start hording those copy protections free hard drives and CD burners...
--------
It's OK to be social, just don't tell anyone about it.
napster(the owners) should have sold their trademark/domain. its a VERY well known brand (a lot of generic people on the street -not literal- know the brand)
oh well. <awaits "napster closes down" before march 02>
At least it's honest. That's what they're doing. The laws may be cruel, unjust, biased, and hypocritical, but if you don't pay the protection money you can't stay in business. That's basically what they're saying. And it's real.
.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
The rule of thumb is that if you purchase a single concert ticket to see a musical performance, you will be putting several more times as much money in the artists' pockets then if you purchased every single one of their albums for their entire career.
I should have expected the Slashdot Socialist Brigade to rise yet again.
This is the best argument you guys can come up with? "It's not the same as MP3, and besides, I can steal it anyway, so why should I pay? Anyway, only the fat cats at the record companies would benefit. If I could pay the artists directly, then yeah, maybe."
Why stop there? Why shouldn't you pay programmers directly for software instead of their employers? When I buy a gallon of milk, shouldn't the money go directly to the dairy farmer instead of the grocery store? [ PETA version: it goes to the cow. ] And of course every penny of that $25K Explorer should go to the auto workers that built it.
It's very simple, folks. These artists chose to enter into an agreement that stated they gave up the right to market their work. That's the way business works - sometimes you make a good deal, sometimes you don't.
I wish folks would stop rationalizing theft in the name of some distorted notion of "freedom".
Fark rocks your nuts shit sacks!
fb-
Can you guys keep fb-?
We're done with him.
Fb- spends most of his time playing with his sweaty nutsack.
alt.binaries.nospam.teenfem.nonnude
The idea that any band still publishing vinyl probably doesn't care if you download their music is exactly where the problem lies. You are stealing their work.
Stealing? Are you kidding? Do even know what the word means? In order to steal something, I have to take it first, which means depriving the original owner of the use of it. That's not what's happening here. When you download a song you haven't paid anyone for, you're doing just that: listening to a song you haven't paid for, which, ironically enough, happens every time you turn on the radio. When you do it after buying other works by the same artist on another format, it's even more inoccuous.
That idea was not pulled out of my ass. I have plenty of personal contact within the independent music scene. You know what? They _don't_ care. Most smaller acts make most of their money by touring, and value their fanbase over their chart position for this reason.
I believe that a subscription based system such as this new Napster is completely representive for the state of music today anyway.
Good for you, then. You can have my slot if you want it. Although the record execs want to believe that all people want to do is buy one or two hits, they envy the money the indie biz pulls in on tours and merch.
People are not concerned with the overall work and feel of a record
How do you explain the success of Radiohead's Kid A or Amnesiac, then? Huh? Sheesh.
Get the songs you want and artists get paid.
Bullshit. Read some of the other posts, or have a friend in a signed band show you his record contract. The artists make their money on tour, which is why most of them don't care what you download.
If you fall off a building, go real limp, because maybe you'll look like a dummy and people will be like hey, free dummy
i love fb-! wOOt!