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

Farking link?

[agentZ]

Is there a reason why the link to Napster is going through fark.com?? They don't appear to have anything to do with Napster...

Re:Farking link?

[agentZ]

Here's a better link:

http://www.napster.com/preview/

Re:Farking link?

[taion]

It's probably because the person who submitted this article first got it off of Fark (which had this item before /. did), and simply gave /. the link that Fark had.

Re:Farking link?

[Anonymous Coward]

Fark rocks your nuts shit sacks!

fb-

Re:Farking link?

[Anonymous Coward]

Can you guys keep fb-?

We're done with him.

Re:Farking link?

[Anonymous Coward]

Fb- spends most of his time playing with his sweaty nutsack.

alt.binaries.nospam.teenfem.nonnude

Why I'll Use It

[Carnage4Life]

Artists Get Paid.

Re:Why I'll Use It

[scott1853]

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.

Re:Why I'll Use It

[Sir_Real]

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

Re:Why I'll Use It

[fanatic]

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?)

Re:Why I'll Use It

[Tim Doran]

What's going to be in place to stop me from claiming I own "Who Let The Dogs Out".

Jeez, I dunno... self-respect perhaps? ;)

Re:Why I'll Use It

[kenthorvath]

For the same reason that I won't charge you for the bandwidth required to read your post.

Would that be because he isn't slashdot and is therefor not paying anything for you to read his post (except the cost of the initial submission...)? Otherwise you should check your logic on that one.

Re:Why I'll Use It

[kenthorvath]

Oh sorry, I got that mixed up... He should be charging YOU otherwise to read his post.

Re:Why I'll Use It

[tenman]

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.

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.

Re:Why I'll Use It

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Why I'll Use It

[murr]

That's an interesting article, but I've always had difficulties believing it. Ms Love does not exactly appear to be poor, and she was not exactly poor even before she had any success in her acting career.

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?

Re:Why I'll Use It

[cancrman]

I agree completely with your points. But the artists that I know (not dropping any names) realize most of what was stated above. They end up making most of their money on tours and they know this.

Tangent-
Why does eveyone automatically assume that any level of fame automatically equates to great wealth? I've never quite understood that one.

Re:Why I'll Use It

[ichimunki]

Why do you people insist on posting the Salon link to Courtney's ripoff version of Steve Albini's article, which can be found (along with a lot of other great articles on the music industry and copyright at this page?

Re:Why I'll Use It

[hooded1]

Although they did title the section of the FAQ Artists will get paid I'm doubtful that they actually will.
Napster will offer artists and labels tools to register as rights holders and get paid for sharing their music on Napster. Artists and other rights holders can set rules for how their music files are used, check their account status online, and receive quarterly statements.

I'm not a lawyer but i'm pretty sure that the rights to most music is held by the big record companies. Therefore those few independant artists will actually get paid, but i'm betting the ones already signed to record labels won't see much of that subscription fee.

Just what the world needs...

[timbck2]

...yet another music file format. Why are they bothering?

Napster investors, Please Read!

[toupsie]

Have I got a deal for you!!! You see, I have a bridge surplus in my inventory right now and I have this gem of a bridge that I hate to part with but I must. Its located in New York City and connects Manhattan to Brooklyn. It will pay off even faster than your Napster investment. Only serious inquiries need apply!

I thought Napster was dead. Guess this is the death rattle for the investors sake. Sad, sad, sad. No one can seem to find out a profitable scheme of ripping off the evil Record Labels.

Nobody?

[mlknowle]

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.

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.

Re:why use it?

[scott1853]

I'm probably a freak, but I'd use it just to find new bands in a certain genre. I already have all the music from the mainstream bands I want.

Of course, they don't state what the fee will be yet, and they don't know how many songs they're going to let you download. And I wouldn't be totally surprised if the RIAA is making them mail 250 lb. USB dongles that have to be attached to your computer to play the songs.

Re:why use it?

[HiThere]

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.
.

It won't fail because it charges money

[Cyberllama]

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.

Re:It won't fail because it charges money

[Matey-O]

Make this comment for Napster, get modded up as 'Insightful', make the exact same comment on Ogg Vorbis, get modded down as a troll. :)

(Ask me how I know.)

Re:It won't fail because it charges money

[Cyberllama]

Well, the only problem with ogg files as I see it is that they aren't playable on most portable devices. At least they don't suffer from the copy protection scheme and offer the same low quality music as mp3. If I were to switch over to ogg, I would at least have gained something when i lost the flexibillity of mp3 (in terms of portable devices/established nature/etc). But what do I gain from .nap files? Nothing. I get a mp3 with a blanket of security wrapped around itl

Re:It won't fail because it charges money

[damiam]

The main difference between .nap and .ogg files is that:

a) .nap files have copy protection and
b) I can play .ogg files in almost any (software) player, on almost any OS.

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.

Re:It won't fail because it charges money

[Syberghost]

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

Ogg is in use on more desktops than mp3, and being adopted by the commercial Unix vendors?

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?

[Brendan Byrd]

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.

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.

Re:Why Won't Anyone Use It?

[DocSnyder]

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.

That's quite easy:

Hi! How are you?

I send you this file in order to have your advice

See you later. Thanks

Re:Why Won't Anyone Use It?

[Chris Burke]

I wonder... Does random speculation count as a violation of the DMCA? It'd be fun if it didn't. Then you could distribute DeCSS as a file that started:

/* Just randomly guessing here, but if you compile this you might get a binary that can read DVD's or something */

main()
{
...

Re:Why Won't Anyone Use It?

[kerrbear]

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.

Interesting point. You know, my view is, the more free something is (as in speech not beer) the more potential for growth there is. If these guys were to do it right, flat fee with unlimited downloads, I think many many more songs would get out to the people.

What I mean is, people tire of the same old thing after a while and they look for something new- so they will stick with the service because they can constantly update different music every month. This has the potential of giving more bands more access to more people, instead of the artificial ClearChannel induced restrictions that are now pissing everyone off.

If only the RIAA would release their tight grip, everyone would win (including them). More bands, more songs, more money for everyone. Freedom always produces more prosperity. Just ask the Soviet Union.

Re:Why Won't Anyone Use It?

[debrain]

The question is:

Who decides the cost. Will it be a competitive rate, or a monopolistic rate. If the latter, then will it be a cost regulated by the government? Not likely.

How could this possibly be a competitive rate, given that most of the music is given a corporate monopoly through copyright in the first place?

To assume that $15/mo will satisfy a given monopoly would be naive, but then, there is no alternative, is there? Monopolies charge prohibitive prices, to maximize profit by appealing to the margin buyer.

If we go down this road, then $15 per song will be considered lucky, get mass produced cookie-cutter music, and lose the artistic freedoms that inspire dyonisian (for lack of a better word, folk) works.

Brian

Re:Why Won't Anyone Use It?

[debrain]

For public/private key encryption, a .NAP file serving node would have to 1. decrypt the .NAP, and 2. encrypt it with the public key. Somewhere in the middle, it must be decrypted. It is possible that this is done stream-wise (meaning that temporary files are not necessary), but nevertheless a binary unencrypted format is necessary - maybe not a playable format, but certainly one that contains all the necessary information. Nevertheless, public key encryption is not tenable given the complexity (computational) of this scenario - it is processor prohibitive.

It is possible that the checksums are hashed, or some such, but that will, as noted, quickly be undone. Theoretically the issue is simple:

To share peer-to-peer requires a communication format. A communication format that is encrypted requires key sharing. Key sharing from a central server can undermine the issue, but extensions to Napster such that keys are shared alongside files or simply publishing of keys (since they need never change, or the files themselves would have to change in which case p2p sharing is again impossible) would undermine the "protection".

Re:Why Won't Anyone Use It?

[SecretAsianMan]

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.

Sure, you could do it that way, but why? There are other, easier ways. Remember that at some point before reaching your brain, the sound data is decrypted. In fact, it most likely is decrypted before being sent to the system's audio device. You simply need to capture the data after it has been decrypted by Napster. Some examples:

• Copy directly out of Napster's buffer. This might be hard.
• Write an audio driver that accepts audio data like any audio device but writes the data to a file.
• Get a sound card with digital audio in/out, and either loopback it or use DAT (or a number of other possiblities) for temporary storage.
• Loopback the analog in/out or use a temporary storage medium. This incurs loss of quality.
• Stick a friggin' tape recorder in the same room as your computer. This incurs loss of quality.

You see, the only way to have truly secure music files is to have the decryption done in whatever part of your brain implements perception. Let's not think about that.

Re:Why Won't Anyone Use It?

[Tackhead]

> Write an audio driver that accepts audio data like any audio device but writes the data to a file.

Actually, this, too, incurs loss of quality.

MP3 is a lossy format. I shudder to think what a 128kbps MP3 is going to sound like after two passes through the encoder, even if the second pass is at 320.

The only "good" workaround would be to get at the decrypted stream of MP3 frames, and write them out to a disk. (Of course, DMCA violation.)

Any of the solutions that involve playing a compressed music stream through an audio port (digital, analog, or capturing the WAV data as it goes to the sound card) are going to be like recompressing .JPGs, and sound like ass.

(Thankfully, none of this matters, since nobody will use crap^H^H^H^Hnapster anyways ;-)

Re:Why Won't Anyone Use It?

[Fjord]

Why bother doing that when you can just write a sound card driver that writes the stream fed to it to disk. That wouldn't even violate the DMCA (IANAL).

Re:Why Won't Anyone Use It?

[Syberghost]

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.

No, you'd need a mechanism to use the private key to decrypt the file into a "plaintext" MP3.

And, conveniently, the code to do that is in the Napster player.

any attempt to implement an open-source whatusedtobenapster client will run afoul of the DMCA.

No, any attempt by citizens of the US or a handful of other countries will run afoul of the DMCA.

Like bad baseball cards

[NiftyNews]

This is going to be like looking in on a swap meet of really lame baseball cards. There will be about 7 users when this thing roles out.

Hopefully it comes with a new chat client so that when one user reports that all AOL "You've got ____" messages are cleared to trade on the system, another user can reply back "Awesome!!!!!"

Wrong category.

[Tackhead]

Lessee here. The new Napster...

• It costs money.
• It's not MP3.
• It's MP3, but with copy protection wrappers.
• You can only download a certain number of tracks per month.

And last, but not least, from the "new FAQ": "Why should I pay when I can get it for free somewhere else?", the answer is "You mean aside from the fact that Napster is the coolest?"

After I wiped the coffee off my keyboard, I kept reading, and saw "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."

Well, sure, but the last time I checked, paying for the privilege of being Hilary Rosen's bitch and copy-crippling my MP3s qualified as "what I want to do with my music collection".

I propose that for 2002, all articles concerning RIAA-endorsed music subscription services go under "It's funny. Laugh".

Where do they get all this money?

[alen]

Are there VC's who are actually pouring more money into this? Haven't they learned with the .com crash that you can't turn a profit running a free service. And who wants to pay to download music they can rip themselves or from friends?

And they can compete with gnutella how?

[KenSentMe]

Why would I go back to napster, or anything like napster, when gnutella has been serving me fine since the day napster shut down it's service?

Re:Secure Format?

[Bandman]

How much you want to bet the first person that cracks this secure format lands a 5 year jail sentence and $500,000 to napster?

Maybe that's their business model? A couple of people being caught for DMCA violations, and they've done better than any other DotCom so far. The bastards...it's almost TOO clever...

No Dammit Taco...

[RadioheadKid]

Well I guess on a larger scale it may be CmdrTaco's responsibility since he is the author, but the words that are annoying you are those of the poster, *ZiggyPop*, not Taco...

Issues

[nanojath]

There are some issues that make this significant. The first is, there need to sources of online music that are unaffiliated with the copyright owners but also trying to legitimately compensate artists/copyright holders. Napster got spanked because they weren't even trying to follow the rules. So the otherwise valid argument that online music wasn't being made available in a fair market couldn't be heard. Now it can be. As a result the copyright hoarders risk subjecting themselves to antitrust violations if they aren't careful about how they do business.

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.

That's funny

[0xdeadbeef]

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.

Re:That's funny

[Xerithane]

the musicians' lament: Seems kind of sad that so much work will be done on something that everyone will steal.

An artist works for passion, a company works for greed.

Re:That's funny

[grytpype]

>An artist works for passion, a company works for greed.

What utter and complete bullshit. Every artist I know hopes to make a living (at least) at what they do.

Re:That's funny

[kindbud]

And that is what is wrong with most art today. Artists feel entitled. That is a new phenomenon that developed because of the rise of the recorded music industry, National Endowment for the Arts, and so on, most of which arose in the past half century or so. Before that, art was not a commodity to be sold like soda pop. Now it is. So don't be surprised when it comes to the bottom line, and people want commodity prices for commodity art.

Re:That's funny

[Xerithane]

Yeah - and does every artist you know have another job? How many of them get paid for what they do? How many of them stop doing it because they can't get paid?

If they stop because they don't make money -- they aren't artists, capitalists.

Re:That's funny

[Xerithane]

Thank you for supporting my argument.

I code for passion, but I still want to make money out of it!

Doing something for a reason, is different than doing it. If you could not get a job as a programmer, would you still code? If you answer no, you aren't an artist. You aren't a real programmer.

It's as simple as that. Companies don't go into business for any other reason other than to make money. If they don't - it's no ones fault but the companies.

I never said artists don't want to make money. I'm just saying that is not the primary goal of any real artist.

Re:That's funny

[Xerithane]

Built to get a PhD and thus a better job. Do you think that Transmeta would have hired Torvalds had he not built the Linux Kernel.

No, built to come up with an alternative to Minix and a number of different reasons. Considering he just now received his honorary doctorate a couple years back I don't see this as relevant.

As for Da Vinci - Most of his now famous inventions were works he did on the side, not those in which he was commissioned too.

Galileo was a professor and was paid to teach. If that was the case, why do we not know the name of every professor and fail to see they were artists? Simple, because Galileo had passion and did what he did for love of science and the artwork of creating not the receival of money.

And please don't assume I am violating an artists copyright -- first off, it's seldom the artists copyright because the rights get signed over to the company. Start coming up with valid arguments as well, the fact remains that artists do what they do because they love it -- not because they get paid. The payment for it is just an added bonus. How many people do you know do something outside of what they get paid for that could be considered art? Sometimes it's not good enough to get paid for, sometimes it is but they still won't because lack of exposure yet they still do it. That is what art is about.

Art isn't about making money. It's about creating something.

Business off of P2P

[Renraku]

I can't see too many people paying for a P2P service. Why only share MP3's that the RIAA/MPAA deem alright to share, when you can go to some other P2P service and get everything for free? Lame.

Re:Dammit Taco...

[alacqua]

*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.

Cracking .NAP files

[--daz--]

So, anyone want to start putting numbers on the time it'll take before .NAP files are cracked?

Somewhere between 1-2 hours is my guess =)

Will the app becalled "DeNAP"?

Umm yeah

[sulli]

Fuck that. Hundreds of mp3s on my iPod, more as soon as I get around to ripping them, and they want me to use an incompatible format? I suppose their license required it, but it sounds to me like it's being set up to fail.

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.

Translation: "hack this code"

[mblase]

There will be some unrestricted files in MP3 format, but when the rights holder requests it, we'll wrap their music files in a security format that defines how the file can be used.

In other words: we've been legally required to implement a security layer on most MP3 files. But it's just a code wrapper, and if you're persistent enough, you can strip it right back off. Just don't mention our name on your "Downloads" page.

Re:I'll pass...

[donutz]

If you want to support the artist, then you should buy the cd, instead of going through another layer to "borrow" some of the profits

isn't it clear to you that people don't want to buy the 12 track cd for the 2 songs they want to hear? I'm not saying that it's a good thing that they only like the songs that are spoon-fed to them on MTV, but that's what they want. If they can get just those songs, why buy the CD? Or if it comes down to listening to just those songs that they paid for thru napster, or not buying the CD at all....which does the musician prefer? I guess we could do a full analysis of the situation, make a few estimates, plug in some formulas....

Personally, I think this whole capitalism/free market thing sucks, but it sucks a little less than the alternatives...so if a musician "goes out of business" cuz he can't afford to just make music...well its just too bad. if a musician wants to make money because he likes it and he's good at it....well there's plenty of people in the world who don't like their jobs, so the musician can go flip burgers like the rest of them, then go home at night and whine about it in a song.

ok, enough ranting.

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.

Re:Money on Napster

[Dr. Awktagon]

Yeah, that would be way cool, a great way to distribute MP3s without having to pay for bandwidth. You could just put on your music website "Wanna hear more of my music? Download 'FOO-DOGGITY' from Napster!". And you might get a few bucks out of it. All the folks (assuming anybody signs up for it) downloading the latest LFO single would basically be subsidizing your bandwidth (communism at it's best ;-).

But NO WAY if it doesn't allow 1) completely unrestricted MP3s and 2) MP3s at any quality (like 256kbs and up.).

The ideal Napster would be exactly like the old Napster but with a subscription fee and a way to ensure you downloaded the right MP3 (ie, the one the artist put out with good ID tags and not the shitty one some kid down the street ripped at 80k mono).

We'll see though. I have a feeling it will become completely irrelevant.

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"...

Re:Hah!

[Alan]

Not to nitpick, as I do agree with you, but artists have labels for a reason (of course, these days labels have artists, but that's another story). Imagine your payment went right to the artist... no, I mean right to them, as in a check delivered to them. Well, what happens when you're an artist and suddenly you have to cash a million checks. That'd kinda suck. Even if it wasn't individual people but organizations (napster, gnutella, random-pay-the-artist.com, etc), that's still a fair number of checks to cash. This is why labels exists.

Nowadays of course they exist not to make life easier for the artist (and get a cut for their troubles), but to simply get their cut and make lots of cash money.

</rant></bitch>

Re:Hah!

[Chris Burke]

The internet (with, say, paypal) would eliminate all the middle men.

Except for PayPal, obviously. :)

Re:Hah!

[ConceptJunkie]

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.

Re:Hah!

[Howie]

Don't forget the risk of paper cuts in handling all those checks. That sure would suck too. I hate it when I get lots of money.

[seriously, I think that it's truer to say it's currently the artist who gets a cut, rather than the label]

Re:Hah!

[grammar fascist]

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"...

That's pretty difficult, considering that the actual artists don't usually own the songs. They're created as a "work for hire" (one of the biggest artist-screwing parts of their contracts), which means that the label owns all the rights. When I program something at work, my company owns it - not me. This is the same thing.

Re:Farking link? - Fixed!

[Alsee]

Apparently the /. editors were on the ball and removed the fark.com part within minutes. The link is now directly to Napster.com.

Kudos to the /. editor responsible!

-

URL

[TheTomcat]

anyone make out the URL at http://www.napster.com/preview/getpaid.html? (-:

S

The biggest controller of Digital Rights on Earth

[Beautyon]

That is what Napster will become if the new incarnation is widely adopted.

It will act like a massive distributed file converter, changing billions of MP3 files into .nap files, making Napster the number one controller of digital rights on the planet.

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 .nap files so that compliance is 100% in that arena.

Next of course, they will attempt to legislate that all other formats comply with the .nap DRM schema so that the other sharing services can be brought into line.

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.

So let me get this straight ...

[KelsoLundeen]

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.

Re:So let me get this straight ...

[moire_theory]

why in the world would I *pay* Napster simply to get a crippled version of (take your pick) Morpheus?

I've been seeing similar statements frequently in other threads as well. I think this type of statement really exemplifies an odd ethical state-- think about what you're saying. The clear reason is that one choice is illegal, the other legal. With one choice, you are buying intellectual property as agreed upon by the publishers (maybe the creators), and in the other case, you're taking the property without permission. Really, this is similar to saying, "why pay for a newspaper every morning when I can swipe one from the guy on the subway?"

Admittedly, I routinely download copyrighted material, yet I have a clear understanding of the real economics and ethics of what I'm doing. In this scenario, it's not uncommon for me to actually purchase the media and share my own money with the content creators (although I will concede that with music, too much does go to the publishers. Yet this is a different story, and is too frequently confused with MP3 contraversy-- after all, the creators are getting little either way, and even less in the case that the music is redistributed, making it a weak justification in my opinion).

Don't get me wrong; I think Napster's current business model is skewed and overly restrictive, and it will doubtfully work. But the fact that so many users have to ask the question of "why?" expresses a worrying lack of understanding and consideration.

Re:So let me get this straight ...

[spudnic]

> Really, this is similar to saying, "why pay for a
> newspaper every morning when I can swipe one from
> the guy on the subway?

It's the same argument you've been hearing for years about why pirating software is ok. In your scenerio, the guy on the subway paid for that paper. If I steal it from him, he will have to spend more money buying a second copy for himself. If I download some 1's and 0's arranged in a pleasent way, I'm not really taking anything from anyone.

Lost sales? Not really. Most pirates are kids who don't have the money anyway. I download a lot of stuff, mostly to play with then delete. If I find some gem that I will use to be more productive in my work, I will definately buy it.

.

Re:So let me get this straight ...

[Graymalkin]

The artist has never gotten paid. Once you realize that you'll understand everything else. Direct payment schemes are complete horseshit because you can't live off donations. Ask any bum asking for a quarter on the street. One month your single might be a hit and you'll make 2500$ easy but then for the next three months you get maybe 100$ worth of downloads. You could sell sperm and make more money in four months if you're verile. Hence record companies. They show up with a paper that says "we'll pay you some up front signing bonus and you'll make a percentage of all money made from your work under the condition that 1) we retain the right to charge you for certain costs of promotion henceforth known as "recoupables" 2) you make as many records and perform as many shows as we decide at the signing of the contract 3) you work will belong to us though we will always give you credit for being the creator". This works for alot of artists which is why you go to the store and find CDs on the racks for sale. These artists said they wanted a chance to make money performing their music and signed over the rights to their work. Having a middleman in the music business is always going to be inevitable. If you've ever worked on commission you'd understand why this is so. They can give an artist a 50k signing bonus so they don't have to go hungry whilst waiting for their music to sell. Once an album is released and promotion is paid for by record sales (recoupables) the artist starts making their money and can then afford the extravagances of the rock star lifestyle or whathaveyou. The artist isn't going to get anywhere asking for handouts on a website. Yet again, ask your nearest bum on the street if he makes enough to live off of while waiting for his music to take off. He'll probably fucking mug you.

Re:So let me get this straight ...

[kerrbear]

It's the same argument you've been hearing for years about why pirating software is ok. In your scenerio, the guy on the subway paid for that paper. If I steal it from him, he will have to spend more money buying a second copy for himself. If I download some 1's and 0's arranged in a pleasent way, I'm not really taking anything from anyone.

But again, if every single person in the city made a copy of the man on the subway's newspaper, then the newspaper would go out of business. So you cannot say it is not taking anything from anyone. In a sense, this case takes something away from everyone, i.e. the continuation of newspaper we all want.

Maybe the newspaper needs a new business model to deal with the new technology, but let's not pretend that use of that technology is unharmful.

Re:So let me get this straight ...

[Graymalkin]

Have you ever tried to get a gig at a club to hopefully make money. Ask anybody who has, you make shit doing it. And for fuck sake, record companies do offer signing bonuses. They meet with bands they want to sign with cashiers checks and hand them over when the contract is signed. What the fuck are you thinking? Thinking the internet removes distribution mechanisms means you're either high or naturally have no grasp on reality. If you make a song you recorded into an MP3 and stick it on a portal which sells it for you...like MP3.com. You have to sign over the rights to the song or they will not sell it. Thus you're in the same situation as a regular recording contract. If you happen to have the equipment to master your own CD you've got the problem of where to sell it. If you sell it yourself you spend more time doing the business work than making music. Most musicians I know do not have a head for this. Hiring someone else to do marketing and distribution for you means they're taking a cut of what you're selling something for. Weird how marketing always seems to make that 30%. As for anyone going direct to the artist, do you know what the legal ramifications are for that? In order to legally sell someone else's work it has to be unsolicited. Someone also needs to own the rights to it. If the artist maintains the right an intelligent vendor isn't going to sign a deal with them without some form of exclusivity. Warehouse Music can't call up Metallica and ask to burn 3000 copies of a record without alot of signatures all over the place saying Warehouse are the only ones who can make copies of the record. Otherwise Smallass Records calls up Metallica and asks to make 3000 copies of the new record but sells them for half of what Warehouse does meaning Warehouse loses money. At which point their management says they will only sign production deals for exclusivity. To hire a legal and business team to handle the rights to their music Metallica hires someone who charges them a parcentage of everything they make off their services. So the middleman always has his foot in the door. You don't go do everything yourself because it is bad business to try to do something you don't know anyhting about. Florists don't offer oil changes. You don't try to sell the music you make, these people are called street performers and make next to nothing performing their music. Stop being a Linux zealot and thinking open source software, the internet, and (insert shit idea here) is going to overrun the world and change the infrastructure of everything.

Re:So let me get this straight ...

[_Sprocket_]

Really, this is similar to saying, "why pay for a newspaper every morning when I can swipe one from the guy on the subway?"

This is actually a really interesting concept to consider.

One doesn't HAVE to buy a daily paper. There's lots of places to get much of the same information. One could steal a paper from the neighbor. One could pitch in a few cents with a bunch of people, slip in the quarter (or two, or four) and everyone take a paper out of the machine (stealing X copies from the origional in a manner). One could grab a used paper laying around the neighborhood coffee shop or bus station. One could read the paper at the local library. Add nausium.

However, papers still get sold. Through stands, machines, subscriptions, etc. Content, convenience, and price (to name a few issues) outweigh all the other ways to get the same news, and even the same product legitimately or not.

The PressPlayster spoof says it all: "Making it easier to steal music than to buy music..." The music industry has loss considerable stranglehold over music distribution. These recent attempts to regain that control will fail. The Industry should be finding a way to leverage their considerable content (and legal issues around it) to offer a convenient and competatively priced product. Then they may succeed.

Re:So let me get this straight ...

[timster]

What about "why pay for a newspaper every morning when I can just read the one in the company break room"?

Newspapers don't make money on sales so this is a bad analogy anyway.

Re:So let me get this straight ...

[Graymalkin]

Trouble with caps lock? I'm not defending the RIAA for fuck sake, learn to fucking read. What I'm saying is there is always going to be a middle man no matter what. Walmart and Kmart aren't going to buy stuff to sell from somebody who can't stick a box of CDs in 80% of their stores. Reason why independant labels aren't sold at either Walmart or Kmart. In my scenario Warehouse cut a deal of 3000 copies which is a pretty legitimate number of sales for a local band. Walmart and Kmart would never cut a small number of CDs like this for one and two would never actually produce anything themselves. Everything with a Sam's Choice logo on it is made by third parties under non-exclusive agreements. So since Walmart and Kmart would never cut a deal where they actually handled the production of someone's records that leaves...wow fuck me, Warehouse Music! That was a pretty easy conclusion, how exactly did you miss out on it? If Warehouse Music got the rights to stamp out copies of someone's record the price would not be much lower than under the aegis of the RIAA, people will buy a 13$ CD, there's no reason for Warehouse to sell it for less. The artist is still getting a small cut of the pie as well as having to go through the hassle of handling their own fucking business arangement.s What about that aspect don't you fucking get. How many guitarists do you think passed an accounting class ever in their lives? Hence middlemen again. Professionals that only concern themselves with the operations of business. They are going to take a cut for all albums sold. Is that so hard to imagine. Fuck you can't be right on slashdot without some free market jackass thinking the internet is somehow going to solve everyone's problems.

Oh yeah, your painter example is inherently flawed because painters sell the master copies of their work, not merely reprints. Those that DO sell reprints hire someone to han dle all of the work of distribution for them because as artists they are ill equipped professionally to handle the business transactions entailed. If you're a musician selling the master DAT of your work your example might work but otherwise it's just plain wrong. Middlemen exist in all industries. If you want to tell the RIAA to fuck off you better have a better distribution model than merely saying "I'll promote my music over the internet".

Re:So let me get this straight ...

[Fjord]

Really, this is similar to saying, "why pay for a newspaper every morning when I can swipe one from the guy on the subway?"

Isn't it really more like "Why pay for a newspaper every morning, when I can swipe one left on the subway by some guy I don't know"? Something that occurs all the time and I'm doubtful most people question the ethics of grabbing an abandonned newspaper.

But then it isn't like that at all since the newspaper still makes their real profit from the advertising.

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:Name-brand versus Free?

[elefantstn]

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.

I get what you're going at, but in every case I can think of, the potential move would be away from the expensive product towards the free one. In response to this, I would ask the question: Are there any cases where people move away from a free product and towards an expensive one?

Re:Name-brand versus Free?

[einTier]

People will pay for something that's better, even if the alternative is free. I'd even hesitate to say that a lot of people will pay for something that's easy to use but not nessessarily better (Windows) than something that's free (Linux).

The vast majority will not pay for Napster. Which is a shame, because the artists will go on being cheated, and the RIAA will say "people won't pay money for downloaded music -- especially when a free alternative exists." This is not nessessarily true.

I would have paid a fee for what Napster was back in it's heyday. I still think it was better in it's prime than Morpheus is today. But, I digress. Napster could have been better than it ever was. Imagine if it was the same old Napster, with the same old trading files. But, for a nominal fee, you could download anything you wanted, from any label, at any bitrate, in .mp3 or ogg vorbis -- directly from Napster. Imagine that. No dropped connections. No partial files. No crappy recording done with a Radio Shack boom box and a fischer price microphone. No mislabeled files. No file that you cannot find at all. Hell yes, I'd pay good money for that.

I refuse to pay money for encrypted, propriatary format files, no matter how good they may be. I refuse to pay money for partial files, incomplete downloads, questionable quality files that I can't do as I wish with.

Why can't they get it? I have no idea.

Re:Are they stupid?

[Ledge]

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.

Re:Hah! (two words)

[seanmeister]

credit cards, genius.
ok, that's three words...

Who comes up with this stuff?

[mystery_bowler]

The sad thing, IMHO, is that I'm sure a lot of people will pick back up using it because a) they don't know any better and b) they think that paying a bit for the music makes everything OK (after all, the artists are getting paid, right?).

I can't help but think that we'd all be better off if the RIAA companies would agree to start a subscription service where people can download songs for $1.00 per song in MP3 (unprotected) format. That kind of pricing makes it so that most people wouldn't mind paying for the music (after all, getting it from your friends would just be a bitch and it's only a dollar). Not to mention, you could avoid the "filler" tracks that come on many albums.

A buck per song. MP3 format so I can take it with me when I go for a jog/sit in the bookstore/mow the lawn/visit the outhouse. If the RIAA companies "trim the fat" a little to get production costs down, everyone could be happy.

Re:Who comes up with this stuff?

[Graymalkin]

Say you only buy a single song? That's 1$ charged to your credit card. Most credit card issuers will not support such small transactions. Not only that but banks offering marchent accounts charge money for the processing of a credit card for a fucking dollar. In some cases merchant banks charge several dollars in transaction fees for transactions under 15 to 20$. So with a minimum of 15$ for buy anything from a pay per play website I'm STILL paying as much as I am for a CD from the local retailer. No one saves any money and the artist still doesn't see a dime of my money until they make the record company enough money to cover recoupables. That also excludes record companies' bumper crop, teenagers. Snot nosed kids buy more music than anybody and they don't have credit cards and it is rare they have access to their parent's credit cards. They either get mom and dad to give them cash to buy it, make the money themselves, or get CDs as gifts from ma and pa. My teenage brother's bought enough CDs to have bought himself a Ferrari. He didn't buy it with a credit card though. As for asking for a parent's credit card every time Jonny Jackass and Susy Screwme want to buy the new Linkn Logs or Sync'N single that won't fly with most people. "Hey mom can I pay a dollar for this single and then have your bank charge you an additional 15%?" For a dollar? Right. Further stressing a households credit is no way to try to make money on music.

Re:Who comes up with this stuff?

[rlp]

Credit cards are not great for small payments, but the payments can be aggregated. You purchase 10 'song credits' for ten bucks. Each time you buy a song, 1 credit is deducted from your account. Vendor gets ten bucks up front plus float, artist gets a cut, you get songs for a buck a piece, bank gets 2-5%. Everyone's happy ('cept the RIAA which fails to kill a new technology).

Re:Who comes up with this stuff?

[Graymalkin]

This only works if 1)everyone accepts song credit from X company, X being the company you bought credit from and 2) the company doesn't go under. This means a song credit will cost you lets say a dollar plus some percentage to make the creditors money. Buying 10 song credits costs me now 12$. If a distribution site doesn't take my credit I have to either buy more credit from someone else or go without. Go look up all the cyber-cash companies that failed miserably. Beanz and Flooz ought to start you off on the hunt.

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:BANDWIDTH

[SuperRob]

Exactly. And since Kazaa, Morpheus, LimeWire, etc. all do a much better job, how does Napster POSSIBLY think that they can compete now?

Tit for Tat

[mrfiddlehead]

I guess users should be able to charge the RIAA for distribution charges since they'll be using their own bandwidth and local machine's storage for the distribution of these silly .nap files, that is assuming, without having taken the time to read their new business model document, that this is still a file sharing peer to peer type system, but one which only hardcore capitalists will want to use.

Feh!

Ok, I made one post already...

[mystery_bowler]

Some crap about subscription services and charging one dollar per song. As usual, I probably should have thought about it a bit more beforehand. Would one dollar per song be profitable?

I'm just asking because I know I've certainly never produced an album or promoted an artist. What kind of costs are involved here? If you wanted to produce an album (assuming CD sales would continue as well as online distribution) and then make the songs available for download in MP3 format, would $1.00 be a good price at which to sell? Would that make money for the artist as well as the company?

I'm guessing that albums and singles that are really successful are those which have sold upwards of one million copies, but that math doesn't seem to work out on a per-song basis. Assuming an artist/band has ONE hit single that one million people download and pay $1.00 for, that's only $1 million in revenue. Considering the likely costs involved, it doesn't seem worth it.

Anyone got any idea what it costs these days to have a professionally-produced album? How about the costs of maintaining a file-download facility like the one needed to support this kind of MP3 distribution?

Labels OR Artists...

[JohnDenver]

From Napster:
Artists Get Paid

Napster will offer artists and labels tools to register as rights holders and get paid for sharing their music on Napster. Artists and other rights holders can set rules for how their music files are used, check their account status online, and receive quarterly statements.

Many artists are legally bound to thier labels and have no control over thier music, so most of your money will go to those labels. HOWEVER, A Label isn't required to distribute your music via new Napster, so those Artists who wish to get paid directly CAN. And those who wish to sell thier soul, can sign up with the labels...

The .NAP format

[Alsee]

I am on the Napster team that created this new Digital Rights Managment file format.

We did extensive research and analysis on all of the available encryptions schemes. We even considered rolling our own. Based on the fact that all client programs would be required to have the decryption algorythm, and at some point the content must be presented to the user, we concluded that security rested entirely within the DMCA.

After reaching this conclusion, we did what any good programmer would have done. We decided not to waste time writing redundant code. We reused an available package. At the insistance of the lawyers, we spent a few minutes customizing the package to be incompatible with the original. The .NAP format is hereby implemented using ROT-14.

-

Re:The .NAP format

[thumbtack]

What? OK, you just gave the roadmap to NAP files "encryption" so therefore under DMCA you are guilty. Furthermore by posting it on /. you've made illegal for anyone to link to the article, or post it. Crafty move, musta been a lawyer in a previous life....

Re:The .NAP format

[Alsee]

OK, you just gave the roadmap to NAP files "encryption" so therefore under DMCA you are guilty

What I posted was purely expressive speach, devoid of any functional aspect. It was therefore covered by the first amendment. All I did was reffer to an encryption scheme by name, without discussing any implementation details. Had I included implementation details I might have violated the DCMA by "providing aid or advice". Had I posted executable code then the functional aspect would have exceded the expressive aspect, and would not have been protected by the first amendment. The courts are still arguing over the expressive aspect / functional aspect in reguard to source code. So far the concensus seems to be to allow source code to be restricted based on it's functional aspect because of the fact that any other resolution would totally gut the DCMA.

As you can see, the situation is quite clear, and there is no justifacation for any good American to break the law. That goes for the rest of the world too. If you're not with us, you're against us. Any failure to comply with our copyright laws is not only unamerican, it's an obvious attempt to undermine the US economy!

Terrorists everywhere!

-

Re:The .NAP format

[thumbtack]

And the DMCA (Damned Millenium Copyright Act NEEDS to be gutted and SOON, & Copyright terms need to go back to something realistic rather than life plus 70 years. The abuse by the copyright cartel of the DMCA has grown ever more ridiculous as time goes on. Songwriters quit writing songs and file lawsuits because it's more profitible, than taking a chance at what you've done all of you life and grown proficent at. Musicians are threatened with lawsuits for sending out press packs with Xerox copies of newspaper and magazine articles reviewing a show they did or their own cd.

My money is on three days max. before there is software available to convert NAP to MP3. Remember if I can hear it I can copy it, through my Soundblaster Live it's as simple as record what you hear. In Total Recorder I can do an MP3 on the fly. Another proprietary format just adds to the confusion, without doing anything to alleviate the licensing problems that plague the online music arena, and encryption of the music, downright silly...DMusic has an article by Ben Silverman where he quotes some recording industry execs.about what they've done in the past year. Following suit won't make it better only worse. My 2 Euros worth.

Re:The .NAP format

[Alsee]

Oh, so you admit the old Napster client was illegal.

&LT sarcasm off &GT

Huh? I don't follow, and can't even guess if there's a sarcasm flag.

FWIW I see Napster as no different than all the other programs that support file transfer (IRC clients, instant messengers, game services, etc.). The entire nature of the internet is finding and retrieving files. Napster's big "innovation" was ease of use, and restricted file type.

-

I say 72 hours

[ColGraff]

They have to make at least a decent effort at encryption, after all.

Does vegas do odds on this stuff?

[sterno]

I think Vegas should seriously considering putting odds on crypto standards. Napster's new sound format will have a built in security mechanism that is (I can only assume) based on some sort of encryption. So the bets are:

1) How long before somebody cracks the standard?
2) How long before Napster sues the person who cracks the standard under the DMCA?

Oh and word to the wise of whoever cracks it, don't take credit, just place it anonymously on some newsgroup and dissapear. Let somebody else take the heat.

Not the reason

[MemeRot]

The payment goes to the label because in 99% of circumstances the artist does NOT own the copyright on their own music. They agree to sign all rights to their work away for eternity to the record label before the record comes out. So you COULDN'T pay the artists directly in trade for licensing the mp3's, they no longer own the art, they already sold it. Contrast this to the book publishing world where authors sign away rights to a work for one printing. Very different.

This has nothing to do with paying artists and never did. The artist has already been paid. They may get a small cut of record sales, they more likely do not. So it's always only been about paying the record companies. Just for clarification....

Speaking of FAQ's

[MulluskO]

I just bought a new computer and I can't find my files. What happened to them?

I always wondered when using Napster, "What group of people used this service?" Then I remember, during it's peak usage, everyone. I think that's why Napster was so great. It gave me something about computers to which my non-geek friends could relate. I remember knowing people who bought computers and subscribed to the internet because of Napster.

On a side note, the recent recession must be realated to Napster use in some way to the recent economic downturn.

Well for NEW music...

[MemeRot]

For new music this is correct. But if you want something by Madonna, the record companies already own all her old work. That's only accessible by making deals with the record company, the artist unfortunately has no say there.

Re:Well for NEW music...

[JohnDenver]

For new music this is correct. But if you want something by Madonna, the record companies already own all her old work. That's only accessible by making deals with the record company, the artist unfortunately has no say there.

Doesn't that go without saying?

+5 FUNNY!

[fmaxwell]

I wish that I had mod points right now because you're entitled to some for that post. Good going!

NewNap?

[sulli]

Try crapster

The RIAA "wins" either way.

[RainbowSix]

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...

to survive

[fatgraham]

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>

I'm more interested in seeing a different model...

[Godeke]

GarageBand has an interesting idea - they take unknowns and when the internet fan base takes an interest in an artist they sign them on and try to launch them into traditional outlets. Frankly, I don't see why this couldn't be extended further from the traditonal markets then they have... they have the distribution capabilities to market the music from their servers direct to the fans...

Microsoft & Napster

[ruvreve]

And you thought microsoft was going to miss out on P2P??? Think again, they have a hand in the release of PressPlay a NEW napster-clone. Check out betanews for all the details.

Can't decide whats better...having to use .NAP or .WMP (Thats windows media player files for you linux-only people)

Re:dumb idea

[mystery_bowler]

Well, yes mass amounts of music would change the dynamic quite a bit. There will always be those who want something - a lot of something - for nothing. But most of my argument stems from your average music listener's point of view.

That point of view, I believe, is one where the average person listens to 2 or 3 songs off a given CD and ignores the rest as "filler." Let's say that the average, music-purchasing consumer buys 12 CDs per year (someone else is more than welcome to plug in the appropriate stats). If we assume the maximum number of desired tracks per album is 3, then that's only $36 spent on the music the consumer wants. But, given that CD prices range between $15 and $25 dollars, that same consumer will likely end up spending upwards of $180 on music. Bum deal.

I'm sure that there will always be those who want their music for free, and if they want it bad enough, they'll find a way to get it. But the majority still do it the old-fashioned entirely legal way and I think recording industry companies can still make a good buck without pissing said old-fashioned customers off so much that they (the customers) start looking for the less-than-legal free ways.

Same old sad arguments

[brocktune]

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".

Re:Same old sad arguments

[f00zbll]

Point well taken, but then again look at all the musicians like Billy Joel and most of the old time blues/jazz men who got screwed. Some of the greatest guitarists credit John Lee Hooker, BB King, Robert Johnson and dozen others for building the roots of modern day rock.

Statement like "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." is == to "It's ok to exploit those with talent but no education to understand a contract."

It is wrong to steel, pure and simple. If I listen to an MP3 and like enough of the songs, I buy the CD. If not, I delete the one hit wonder and move on. I've seen friends get screwed, the picture is far from accurate. Talk to your local bands and ask about how tough it is to get signed and then have the record label market them aggressively.

What most people don't realize is most bands pay for the marketing, recording and 90% of the cost of producing a record. Only a small percentage of bands/singers get great deals. Musicians who are also great businessmen are rare. The analogy of a 25K explorer is far from accurate comparison. In most cases, the musician composes, records, mixes and performs. Next they actively go out to push their CD by hiring a manager to book dates and locations. Rarely do record companies go way out to help a band they just signed. Most bands do their own marketing, so the argument that labels do all the marketing is swiss cheese.

Re:Same old sad arguments

[gnovos]

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".

Name for me, please, the number of top 40 musicians who didn't sign contracts with the RIAA labels. No please, don't be shy, go ahead... So few? How about the number of those non-contracted bands have thier CDs in Blockbuster Music stores?

When you *must* sign a contract to get your music played on the radio and placed in the "popular" stores that isn't a real choice, my friend.

I wish folks would stop rationalizing theft in the name of some distorted notion of "capatalism".

Re:I'll pass...

[Computer!]

So basically, you're saying you'd be willing to pay for the oppotunity to listen to the same songs you hear on the radio, just whenever you want?. Big fucking deal! It's called a cassette recorder, or in the case of MTV, a VCR.

When are people going to wake up and realize that music does not demand US$2M videos, or multi-million-dollar ad campaigns. You are paying the labels for the privelege of making sure that you're listening to the same music as the asshole in the car next to you!

The same NSYNC song you hear on the radio makes NSYNC (and its label) millions in endorsements, merch, ticket sales, calendars, psters and other bullshit. Why do you need to add to their giant, steaming pile of cash with the $2 you throw on? Because you feel guilty? Please! Do yourself a favor- shut off the radio for 2 seconds and go to a record store. That's right, a real record store. Look at the records, then buy some. Notice the $10 price tag. Stop on the way home and buy a record player.

Once you get home, download all the mp3s you want, because you already own the rights to the music. Hell, if you find some songs from the same band you didn't buy yet, download those too. Any band still publishing on vinyl probably doesn't care.

Realize: you are the consumer. Your opinion is the only one that matters. If you think CDs are priced unfairly, stop fucking buying them!. If you think radio sucks, stop fucking listening to it!.

Either way, never sign up for some subscription service. Subscriptions are a great business model, but they put the onus on the consumer to get the most use out of them. If cable was offered on a pay-per-show basis, the cable companies would go bankrupt because it would force consumers to analyze their entertainment choices, just like at the movie theatre, or the concert hall, or the arcade. One by one, only the best programs would be watched, and there would be no audience for the crap that passes as TV. Paying a subscription fee for music makes the already miserable music scene even more depressing.

dumbass

[Ender Ryan]

Assuming you're not being sarcastic...

Yeah, I know you're a big fan of playing "Devil's Advocate" (often, you're simply being sane, as sanity is lacking here at times), but you've got to be fucking kidding me on this one. Artists don't get paid unless/untill the labels make millions off their music.

I personally know some artists who have been on the verge of making it big for the last 4 years, every chance their labels(yes, plural, they've been all over) get they totally fuck them over. If you listen to metal much, you've probably heard them.

They're simply whores and their labels are their pimp. The labels get the money, the artists do the work and get bullied and pushed around and just generally disprespected and treated like shit. Lables are in constant violation of their already extremely label favoring contracts.

It's really one of the most ridiculous industries on this sad little planet.

note: I won't disclose the name of the band because I'm not sure what they have publicly disclosed about the trouble they've had with their labels.

what I WOULD pay for

[Ender Ryan]

I won't pay for any service like this until I get the following...

1. 192kbps+ Ogg Vorbis or MP3 files, no exceptions, proprietary files are simply unacceptable.
2. Central servers. Why the fucking hell would I PAY for a service that allows me to SHARE? Why do I care about SHARING if I'm PAYING?!? WTF? I can share on my own thankyouverymuch!
3. Relaxed licensing dammit! I should be allowed to share a few files with friends or bring the files into work. I'm not talking about setting up a free-for-all ftp, if I could simply buy the files in a decent format for a reasonable price I would which would make running an ftp unnecessary.

FYI, I currently share MP3 files with 2 people. I'm not into "piracy" at all, I simply like music and like to listen to music before I buy it.

Is that such a huge problem for the music industry to handle? Can't they deliver what their customers want?

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.

Does Bertlesmann expect this to succeed?

[isdnip]

Doesn't Bertlesmann, the German Big 5 record conglomerate, own Napster now? It's not Sean's anymore.

This leads me to think that Napster is, like PressPlay and MusicNet, designed to fail. It is designed to allow subscribers to listen to music on their computers, not elsewhere. So it's value to the user is grossly inferior to, say, FastTrack/Kazaa/Morpheus or the old Napster.

The major labels are willing to put money into failures, because they want to prove a point, that online sales are not going to work. They want to divide the world into two camps, those who purchase costly mechanical artifacts with stored music (CDs, etc.) licensed to their possessors (good), and those who copy off the net (bad).

A real online music distribution system could be concocted, with the artist getting directly paid based on upload volume, and the consumer paying, say, a monthly subscription fee that is allocated among artists proportionately (not fee per play). But that would undercut the major labels, who won't let it happen. And the DMCA + WIPO let them keep it from happening.

Same old arguments, same old truths

[cgenman]

"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."

Interesting how labels almost always wind up with the good deal, and some of the crem de la crem of successful artists (TLC, BBKing, Toni Braxton...) file for bankrupcy. Business works because sometimes you get good deals, sometimes you don't. When an entire class of people never get a good deal from people who are making truly disgusting amounts of money, things move from the realm of business to the realm of exploitation. They did sign a contract (whose only other option was to go back to Mc Donalds and never be heard), but contract law in this country (usa) has always been based around the balance of the technicalities of the agreement and its spirit. Calling it "very simple" is a gross misuse of that term.

I know that is a separate issue from piracy. That's like saying in 1930 that I won't buy German cars because of their politics. That's not exactly a fair analogy: Other countries made cars back then. But when the money trail goes 95% assholes, 5% artists, it becomes quite tempting to enact the only power we have (veto) and shout "Fuck it! Nobody gets paid!" This is of course a strategy successfully utilized by strikers and boycotters around the world, with the major difference that most strikers / boycotters are a little clearer about their reasonings than most of the morpheous crowd.

Napster took distributers, labels, paid radio play (and all of it is paid these days), coca-cola tie-ins, and all of the rest of the uglyness out of something that is a low-level expression of humanity and culture. Unfortunately, it also didn't pay the artists.

Yes, Napster2 should use MP3's. These wrapper formats are basically a form of house arrest for music, whereas one of the largest benifits of digital music is the awesome portables. Yes, distributers and those who accept financial risk (which is the primary function of labels) should recieve their fare share. And yes, the idea of paying 20$ a month for the general shoddyness we've come to expect from Napster connections seems rather foolish. A portion of that 20 should definitely go to some servers and some bandwidth. None of this is really up for debate.

Speaking of money, How much have mainstream CD's crept up to? Let me go see... The latest N'Sync lists for 19 bucks. We bought a licenced, artist-paid 2 CD set of Bossa Nova & Samba in Argentina for 5 dollars. It lists here for 22.99. Compared to tapes and records, the distribution and manufacturing costs of CD's are nothing. Compared to CD's the distribution costs of MP3's are nothing. Shouldn't such reductions have some effect on the overall price of music? Shouldn't these effect the price paid to distributers?

The artificial control - based politics of the RIAA, which is what keeps music prices high, is going to be a factor in whether or not people accept these new services. Ask Dimitry. Ask Johansen. Ask Courtney Love. Ask the young artists struggling to get some radio play. Ask the consumers who are spending 4 hours worth of paycheck (after taxes) to buy (technically, "licence") 1 hour worth of music. The RIAA hasn't exactly killed 20 million Jews, but if it was in their business interests I wouldn't put it past them. Knowing that a large portion of the money I spend on CD's will go to a group dedicated to the strengthining of the DMCA and the destruction of basic freedoms in this country makes me feel like it's a moral imperitave to NOT pay for music. We're not living in Saudi Arabia yet (unless of course, you are), but we could very soon find ourselves living in Australia. Theft of rights is a form of theft too, and the kind that we have to be most vigilant about.

Music is one of the strongest forms of culture we have, and those who make money creating a scarcity (and qed a depravity) of culture should not be supported. Go to shows, go to concerts, buy a pack of beer for your favorite artist, dance, and be free. Spend money on music in ways that help artists and seem fair all around, and which don't destroy the cultural landscape. Support positive labels. The ugly, exploitive side can go screw: Napster taught us that we can always just help ourselves.

20$ a month = 140$ a year = 10$ to the RIAA = 10 minutes of some prick convincing Ashcroft that talking badly about encryption legislation is a form of terrorism. Now multiply this number by a million subscribers.

Wrong: Read the comments for the last ogg article

[Error27]

The post makes the following points:

People don't want to switch from mp3. People don't have hardware that plays .nap.

The same comments were made for ogg and were moderated up to +5 for the last ogg article.

You are not as oppressed as you believe.

Two simple questions

[jeti]

1. Will I be able to burn songs I bought at Napster on CDR (mostly for my car player)?
2. My friends produce music. Can they share their own songs using Napster?

Re:Well if it went without saying....

[MemeRot]

I wouldn't have to point it out to the people saying they want to pay the artist for the material. That's not a possible legal solution for most of the music they want to access.

Sad truth: artists need record companies

[evilandi]

AC: record companies are indeed a great evil

Why specifically record companies? Why not anyone who deals in someone else's intellectual property? Booksellers, publishers, librarians... all these are scum of the earth too, according to your logic.

Thing is though, your logic is flawed. You presume that the artist is the thing that deserves the most reward.

It's not actually that difficult to make a really good song. It's not even difficult to distribute it, provided it is done digitally. So how come there aren't lots of great songs going around on Morpheus that don't exist on CD?

Because what is difficult is to market a really good song. As in, publicise it, take it to the masses and actually bring in the money.

Firstly, radio station playlists don't come from a team meeting of benevolent DJs who spend their time searching out new sounds. Playlists come from record companies bombarding radio stations with publicity. Wise up, sucker. Commercial radio stations (and even the BBC) have fixed playlists controlled by marketting hype. It's only on the unprofitable grass-roots stations that have DJs who actually do any research.

Secondly, every artist who has tried to make a living (actually pay their bills, without claiming social security) SOLELY out of online trading of their IP has failed. You can only do this if you are already established, ie. have already shifted lots of coasters. Not forgetting that you need a decent way to accept payments.

So the horrid harsh reality is that ARTISTS NEED RECORD COMPANIES. Sorry, but they do. Record companies are not evil, they are actually the largest part of what makes pop music pop.

Re:I'll pass...

[Computer!]

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.

He who has the money...

[sterno]

Look at what happened recently with the Ukraine. The US doesn't like their IP policies so they set out a bunch of tariffs to get them into line. The math on this is grim and simple.

Big media corporations stand to benefit from tight intellectual property controls. Wealthy countries have large entertainment industries. Politicians in all of these countries need money and so the politicians bend to the will of those corporations.

Wealthy countries have leverage against poorer countries. They can threaten everything from tariffs to witholding aid money to inciting political unrest in a country to get their way. Smaller countries have very little financial incentive to not confrom to the interests of the wealthier nations and so they give in.

America may be starting down the road to hell first, but they are dragging everybody else with them.

Re:Well if it went without saying....

[JohnDenver]

I wouldn't have to point it out to the people saying they want to pay the artist for the material. That's not a possible legal solution for most of the music they want to access.

Yes... but I ALREADY pointed that out my original post.

You just expanded on what I said by putting in the context of an example, but you made it sound like I missed something.

PS, I'm not being obsessed on being right... I'm obsessed on how everybody else is wrong... :)