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...

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

[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

[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

[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?

Just what the world needs...

[timbck2]

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

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?

[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.)

Why Won't Anyone Use It?

[Violet Null]

Two words: .NAP files.

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

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

Re:Why Won't Anyone Use It?

[fallen1]

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

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

My .02 non-euro worth.

Re:Why Won't Anyone Use It?

[Tackhead]

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

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

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

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

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

Re:Why Won't Anyone Use It?

[Phil Wherry]

I couldn't agree more.

The industry needs to understand a few things.

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

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

Re:Why Won't Anyone Use It?

[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

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".

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...

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.

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.

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!

[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.

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.

.

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.

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

[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!

-

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.

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.

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...

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".

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.

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.