Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

BMG to Purchase Napster

Posted by michael on from the napster-plz-die-thx dept.

asv108 writes "In a dramatic reversal, Bertelsmann has agreed to purchase Napster's assets. Founder Shawn Fanning and CEO Konrad Hilbers are set to return to the company after announcing their resignation earlier this week."

9 of 155 comments (clear)

  1. Napster's assets? by cliffy2000 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Yes, my valuation of Napster is up there with Enron and Global Crossing. :)
    So many assets!

  2. in other words.. by swein515 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Founder Shawn Fanning...set to return to the company after announcing their resignation earlier this week.

    ..after realizing he had zero experience or skill to work anywhere else.

  3. as usual, the music industry by JeanBaptiste · · Score: 4, Interesting

    is about 2 years behind everyone else... I am just worried they bought napster in order to patent some of the involved technologies. They do have the money to pay the lawyers to try to do that.

    1. Re:as usual, the music industry by zCyl · · Score: 4, Insightful

      wouldn't it be cheaper to pay someone to duplicate technologies in Napster rather than buying the name?

      Welcome to postmodernism. Names are worth far far more than technologies. Do you think McDonalds has some magic way to make burgers and fries better than anybody else can?

  4. ..Does anyone still care? by Bowie+J.+Poag · · Score: 4, Insightful



    With OpenNAP, WinMX, and so many other P2P solutions available these days, does anyone really care about Napster? By today's standards, centralized hub-trading is sort of obsolete..

    tar zxvf bag.tar.gz | cat cat

    Cheers,

    --
    Bowie J. Poag

  5. Who still cares about Napster? by agent+oranje · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I haven't used Napster since "the man" first cracked down on them, because there are so many alternatives which will forever be free. I don't use these, either, as emusic.com provides quality music, fast downloads, and I'm actually supporting the artists in the end. I'd rather pay a small fee to get what I want then endlessly search for what I want with a free client.

    Napster is dead, and due to the fact that Napster isn't Jesus, Napster is going to stay dead. I'm glad the record companies are wasting their time and resources trying to bring back the service they destroyed. The irony of companies wasting their money trying to revitalize a service that they claimed would cause them to lose money. -agent oranje. its not just for breakfast anymore.

    --
    -agent oranje.
  6. Re:This is good but by PepsiProgrammer · · Score: 5, Funny

    Well, at least SOMEONE is buying something from napster now.

    --
    "The United States has no right, no desire, and no intention to impose our form of government on anyone else." - Bush 05
  7. Legitimacy, that's why. by Planesdragon · · Score: 5, Informative

    BMG, and the rest of RIAA, can sell something that no file-sharing app can get you. Legallity and legitimacy.

    There is a price-point where people will pay to have a legal right to the song that's allready illegally on their computer. If BMG can figure out the right price point, they can make a profit selling nothing but legitimacy.

    Personally, I'd give them my legal name, home address, and give them permission to track me until the day I die IF I can get a full legal title to the music I buy. I want to be able to get a "replacement media" discount on a new copy of my destroyed CD. I want to be able to download lossless song files to burn me a custom album, and have it be 100% legit.

    I won't pay $50 a month to do this. I would pay $5 a year. Somewhere in between those two, I would have to reserve judgement until the offer's been made.

    If BMG can provide what I want, I will buy from them.

    1. Re:Legitimacy, that's why. by manobes · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Here's the problem as I see it.

      People aren't attached to music labels. Nobody is exclusive to a certianly record label (i.e. I only buy Sony). This is a huge problem for label sponsored download sites.

      While I concur with your point that nobodys going to mind paying $5/year to use BMG/Napster, they aren't going to want to do the same form Sony/Napsterclone, Universial/Napsterclone, etc. It's not just the price, it's the hassle. You've got to fill out a separte signup form for each one, and each has a different UI, different media format, different copying policy etc.

      CD stores are successful becuase they aren't label specific, that's why Napster was successfull too. You could get anything you wanted there. If all they carry in the future is BMG music, then what's the point?