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..."

Comments

why use it?

[2MuchC0ffeeMan]

" Why should I pay when I can get it for free somewhere else?

You mean aside from the fact that Napster is the coolest?
Seriously, we know that there will always be a lot of alternatives. Ultimately, the choice will be yours, but we feel that file sharing communities that pay copyright holders and provide simple, useful tools to help you do what you want with your digital music collection are going to prevail. We feel strongly that the value you receive from Napster will make the fee seem insignificant.

yes, the alternatives we've grown the love over the last 6 months just don't compare the the 'quality' that we could get with the satisfaction of making the RIAA much richer than it already is.

Why Won't Anyone Use It?

[Violet Null]

Two words: .NAP files.

Why should I spend money to get music as files that won't play on my Nomad or Archos Jukebox?

I'm all for giving the artists a cut of the subscription, or on a per-download basis, or what have you, but if it's in this "secure" format then it becomes worthless to me.

Re:Why Won't Anyone Use It?

[fallen1]

Yeah, this is true so I'll tell you what... give it two weeks and .NAP will be .HACKED and you'll have your nice MP3 format back again and can use the files anywhere you wish. You know it will happen, I know it will happen, Napster knows it will happen. The RIAA and the "Big Labels" behind it just don't fscking get it yet.

If the artists will get paid, and not the labels, I'd use it - especially if the .NAP gets hacked and I can use the music I just paid for on any system I own.

My .02 non-euro worth.

Re:Why Won't Anyone Use It?

[Tackhead]

> give it two weeks and .NAP will be .HACKED

Suppose you have a private and public key. When you download a .NAP, it's encrypted by the client on the other end with your public key. The only box that can decrypt the .NAP is yours, as only your box has the private key.

Assuming this is the implementation, in order to crack .NAP, you'd need a mechanism of sending your private key along with any .NAP file you send to another user.

Since it's a closed-source client, and since the primary use of a hack to supply private keys along with the .NAP file will be to circumvent the copy control measure of the .NAP file format, any attempt to implement an open-source whatusedtobenapster client will run afoul of the DMCA.

Not that I can see anyone wasting time implementing this, when there are free (as in speech and beer) alternatives.

Re:Why Won't Anyone Use It?

[Phil Wherry]

I couldn't agree more.

The industry needs to understand a few things.

• People despise copy restrictions. Copy restrictions make it a little more difficult for the amateur thief. They make it lots more difficult for people who want to pay for music but use it in ways that "feel" fair but that don't line up exactly with a narrow-minded view of those in charge of "rights management."
  
  
• Paying for music isn't scary. Pay-per-use or pay-per-download is scary because it's not predictable. So long as the pricing is below some threshold of pain (I'm guessing $15/month but I'm no expert), I suspect that folks will be largely willing to "pay the music bill" rather than simply trade among themselves. I suspect that some system of royalty allocation could be worked out based on number of downloads that would split the monthly fee among the various players.
  
  
• For heaven's sake! Music is an expressive medium - that's why people want to share it! So the for-pay services need to take advantage of that. Just last night I burned an 18-track CD that consists of a mix of music I enjoy. If I were able to upload my playlist to the aforementioned service, a few of my friends might wind up downloading the files and burning the same CD (particularly if the client software made that easy). Artists (and labels) would get paid for their efforts. And it's enabling me to do something I really can't do right now: share a mix CD with friends without the vague nagging feeling that I'm doing some wrong to the very artists whose music I enjoy. I'd pay for that, though I'd still want it to be flat rate.
  
  
• Where's the revenue growth to be found? Ancillary services beyond the basic download-some-music flat-rate service are one option. Flat-rate models will support periodic price increases if the perceived value is there: I'm unlikely to gripe too much if the service goes from $15/month to $17/month in a year's time if I'm finding it valuable.
  

Sure, there's risk involved in doing this. But I'm not sure it's a big risk: the industry really needs to take the leap of faith and understand that when nearly all of the music-listening public thinks that digital rights management, endless restrictions, damaged media, etc. are a bad idea, perhaps they really need to try something new that provides a mutual benefit.

Re:Why Won't Anyone Use It?

[Anonymous Coward]

Heh ...

No matter what sort of encryption system they decide to use, one fact remains.

The Napster software on your PC is capable of decrypting the .NAP files on your PC. We know that this is true, because your computer can play those files.

Odds are that a .NAP file is really an .MP3 file with an encryption layer. Dig into the Napster client, and eventually you WILL find the place in the code where the encryption layer is removed. Insert a trap there, and save the data in .MP3 format.

Money on Napster

[WiggyWack]

Actually, the "Artists Make Money" section was somewhat interesting.

If I can put my music/audio on Napster and then get paid whenever it changes hands, that might be interesting.

MP3.com used to have the "Pay for play" system where artists could get money each time their music was played or downloaded through the site.

At first that system was awesome - it was free for artists AND the listeners! But then MP3.com got bought out and you had to pay $20/month to be part of the program and they started adding all these things which made it really complex. So I quit that.

But if registering my stuff with Napster can get me cash, I'm interested.

There might be some cost to the artist (or maybe it'll be free in the beginning) but it could be cool.

Hah!

[cr0sh]

It doesn't look like the artists will be paid (from the FAQ):

How is Napster going to stay legal? Will you filter out certain songs, like before?

All the music available through Napster will be legally licensed for sharing in the Napster community. When you make music available for sharing, our system will check to make sure it's licensed to Napster. We're busy getting licenses to music from copyright holders ranging from major to independent labels, so there'll be a lot of great music when we launch -- and we'll continue adding to that body of music.

(Emphasis mine)

So, once again, it looks like both the artists and the users are being screwed.

This solution Napster will be offering would be more palatable in my view if we knew the money was going DIRECTLY to the artists, rather than via the "label"...

120,000 mp3's.

[Anonymous Coward]

I probably have more mp3's than all the current users of Napster put together right now.

The Napster & Napster clones only work when a critical quantity point has been broken, due to many users. It's an upward spiral after that. However the "new" Napster will never hit this critical point.

I can't imagine working for Napster's development team. How boring and bleak those halls must be compared to a couple years ago.

I'm still disappointed I could never log onto Napster with more than 8,000 mp3's at a time. It just locked up tighter than a drum. I imagine my collection of 533 GB wouldn't even get to knock on the front door anymore.

Name-brand versus Free?

[Rayonic]

The general public knows the word "Napster", and that name alone could carry it to success. Yeah, the FastTrack network has gotten huge, and Napster hasn't even been up for a long time, but Napster still has some big name recognition with Joe Public.

I mean, can't anyone think of other cases where people chose an expensive product over a free one? I can think of one or two off the top of my head.

Re:Why I'll Use It

[bindster]

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).

But that's exactly what you're doing, by hoping that nobody alters or tinkers with a file that they've bought. If I record some music by using the line-in on my sound card I'm free to convert that file to any format I want; shouldn't I be able to do that with a file that I paid for?

The only way that you could disagree is by employing the same subversive logic that those companies pushing SDMI and SCMS on us are using: the consumer is not buying the music, s/he is buying the right to listen to is. But then again, if you believed that, you might also think that Digital Rights Management is innovative.

BANDWIDTH

[zmokhtar]

One thing that people keep forgetting is that the brilliance of Napster was that we all shared bandwidth with each other and everyone carried the burden of distributing files. Kazaa does an even an even better job at this. Now that this is a pay thing, does napster plan to host a large number of files itself? Or will they still depend on their users to host the files for them? If Napster hosts the files, how will they pay for all the bandwidth they will need?

Re:Why I'll Use It

[spookyfluke]

I think that's where the .NAP file format steps in. It must include some sort of unique ID thingy. All of this will probably cost the artist, especially naive young bands with stars in there eys, more money then they will ever make off it.

Re:It won't fail because it charges money

[abe ferlman]

Ogg is to mp3 as Gnome was to QT/KDE.

It's not so much that Ogg wants to be better than mp3 or to replace it- it's just an effort to keep Fraunhofer honest so they don't pull a Unisys-style gif move and start charging users outrageous rates. If they do, there's a free alternative to fall back on.

Whether people actually are forced to fall back on that alternative is completely beside the point- there *is* an alternative nipping at their heels, looking for the slightest sign of weakness.

On the other hand, this is just the fruition of Napster the company trying to cash in their chips. The record companies called their bluff, and rather than stand on principle the Napster folks gave in to their greed. They have limited the options of people who trust them, rather than increased them.

That's why that comment gets modded down as a troll in a vorbis discussion and modded up as insightful here.

Give em money if you like.

[ClickWir]

Imagine having the ability to download and get music just like you used to be able to with Napster. Like you can do now with winMX and others. But also imagine having the abilty to have a choice right there IN the program to donate some money to the artist. Screw the record companies and labels. I'm talking direct money to them. No middle man crap.

Imagine just being able to donate a dollar or two if you think the mp3 is great. Notice I said donate not subscribe. With the exact same abilty as you do and do not have right now to download songs, just add the abilty to donate DIRECTLY to the artist.

Now that would be cool. Maybe someone like PayPal and winMX could work something out. But this subscription service crap is for the birds and lamers. I won't even go near it.

Re:Why I'll Use It

[Anonymous Coward]

Firstly, how do you know how well off she was before she became succesfull? Secondly, Nirvana is not a good example. Their contract was with Sub Pop originally, an indie that allowed the artists full controll of their work. When they got popular a bigger label (Geffen I think) bought their contract with Sub Pop but it was still the original deal. Additionaly Nevermind was produced by Steve Albini who charges a sliding scale depending on the band's means, that record was probably paid for before it got it's umpteen zillion sales. After that massive success, again something few bands get, they could write their own ticket. They probably get at least 20 points off of their current sales. They are one of the few who made thick chunky gobs of money.

I can't believe I just defended Courtney Love...

Umm.. isn't this a GOOD thing?

[nebby]

Ok, from what I can tell, the "new" Napster is basically going to make it so music available on it results in copyright owners getting paid. If you find music on Napster, someone somewhere approved its presence.

So basically, for popular music, this translates to the RIAA getting paid. This is what people bitch about, somehow using their hatred of the RIAA to justify breaking the law, but of course this is legitimate business since the artists signed away their copyright to the record label(s)..

I speculate that during the downtime Napster has been able to get thousands of artists "approved" to use the service. This means that when they get back online I'd guess that many people who initially sign up (and with the Napster name, I think there will be more than just a few) will have their entire MP3 collections tagged as approved with a few exceptions. This is actually one good thing that comes from a monopoly on music: only half a dozen fat cats to bargain with and you get the right to re-distribute (or in Napster's case, piggy back the distribution of) a shitload of music :)

However, it also seems that Joe Q. Artist will be able to "publish" his music on Napster and get paid for it. If a lot of people migrate over to the new Napster, it's possible that many artists currently being screwed by the RIAA might say "fuck it" and just release their stuff on their own via Napster.

The .NAP thing, as anyone with half a brain realizes, is just there to appease the record labels. Nap2mp3 will be out a few hours after Napster goes live, but this isn't really a big problem. The issue here is that depending on how much press they get and how many people want to actually pay for the service (virtually unlimited music LEGALLY for a monthly fee? I'd sign up if it didn't suck and I can get them to play on my portable.) Napster very well might be poised due to their well known name brand to begin the weening of artists off the RIAA for those who want to distribute exclusively through MP3 (or, actually, NAP files.)

I don't see it being much of a big deal to the tens of thousands of college kids when the phrase "Hey Napster is back up!" is uttered around campuses to shell out $15 on mom's Visa in order to log in. I'm talking about the non-Slashdot reading CS majors who shower and used to enjoy downloading the trendy songs they heard on the radio via Napster. These people are not going to complain about NAP and the few tech savvy will convert them to MP3, and will not make the connection that Napster is making money off of their bandwidth.

I think it might just work. The question really is weither or not there are a lot of people who dropped sharing MP3s altogether after Napster died (and didn't try Gnutella, etc.) and will be willing to pay a bit each month to start getting new music again. Also, there will probably be a few people who switch just so they're not breaking the law anymore (if the Slashdot "Information wants to be something I don't have to pay for.. I mean.. Free!" piracy team can believe that.) We'll see I guess.