Slashdot Mirror
Napster files for Chapter 11 bankruptcy
Joey Patterson writes "CNN Money reports that Napster has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy." Thank god the industry shut them down... now that piracy
has been stopped they can all sleep much better.
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
...is that Hilary Rosen probably thinks she's won.
If I understand this correctly.. Napster is gone... which leaves now... wait.. no it doesn't get rid of sharing software.. instead we now have access to tons of FREE (napster was to be pay) sharing software for MUCH more then napster ever dreamed of when they came out..
Want paintshop? Ok.. let me fire up KaZaa!
Want videos? Ok.. let me fire up KaZaa!
Want sheep? er.. that's not my department but you can probably find that on KaZaa too.
Don't tell me nobody didn't see this coming - the innovator is rarely the successful party in any technology leap, usually it's the follow-ups that jump on the bandwagon and streamline/fine tune a process that make the big bucks.
Napster paved the way for P2P, but really, who thought they'd get rich doing it? Well, besides Shawn Fanning, anyway.
-72
-Those who dance are considered insane by those who can't hear the music.
"Once the RIAA shut down the filesharing service, Napster, Inc. had no means of turning a profit that I could see."
How were they making money before they got shut down? I'm astonished they lasted as long as they did, too.
--
pants ahoy
If you recall, K-Mart has also filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy to protect them from their creditors while they attemp to reorganize into a profitable company.
Filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy does not mean that the company is gone or is no longer operating. In the case of Napster, the great levels of piracy ended long before today.
end of line
I'm a songwriter, and I considered Napster to be a really great vehicle to get my music to others that would normally not get the opportunity hear it. I own my music, and I wanted to give it away free. That is my right. Are you telling me that this argument doesn't matter? Also, Napster didn't break "a law". There were no laws governing P2P file sharing technology. The people using Napster and downloading copyrighted material that they DIDN'T ALREADY OWN were the ones breaking the laws. Not the company itself....if I use my Jeep Wrangler as a getaway car in a robbery maybe we should sue Jeep for "Breaking Laws" and giving me the opportunity to commit a crime. Those Vehicle Making Bastards.
" Bertelsmann stepped in on May 17 with $8 million to buy Napster's assets. As part of that agreement, Napster was to voluntarily seek bankruptcy protection and emerge as a wholly owned unit of Europe's second-largest media group. "
Everything Jesus did was illegal.
The Boston Tea Party was illegal and involved stealing.
The American Revolution was illegal and would be considered stealing from the king.
Freeing slaves through the Underground Railroad in the 1800s was also considered stealing and illegal.
See a pattern here? In the grand scheme of things, history has been determined by those who followed their hearts and did what they felt was right, rather than following the orders of another man.
Bill Clinton: Pimp we can believe in. - The Shirt!!!
Don't count on that. They still have more money and time to throw at the problem. My guess is that they will do so, at whatever level it takes. They are a big part of the US economy, so I would guess there will be some sort of political pressure through treaties or something.
For now, though, the seas are open and there is loot to be reaped.....er, music to be downloaded.
you are comparing music theft with Jesus' acts, the boston tea party, and the freedon of slaves?
Thanks for making my point. You really did just fall off the turnip truck.
Whatever you think about Napster, the editor's comment on this story is lame.
Putting a murderer in jail doesn't put a stop to all murders. Does that mean it's a waste of time?
We're blowing this argument, and when we lose, everyone's going to blame the record companies, but it's going to be our own fault.
Defending stealing is wrong, and as much as everyone likes free stuff, it's just not possible that the "stealing is ok" argument is going to fly in the courts and in congress over the long run.
The other lame argument that people make is that "the record companies would be better off if they allowed sharing." Maybe. Probably not. But the point is that it's their property, and they get to decide what to do with it.
There are two issues on the table. The one that everyone talks about is piracy. There's no way to win this in the law, although technology will probably make it possible to steal music and share it over the net for the foreseeable future.
The other one, and the one that is winnable, is about whether or not there will be open electronic distribution systems. Right now entertainment companies control distribution, and that's how they make their money.
Movie studios make money by controlling access to the multiplexes -- indpendent films have to make "distribution" deals if they want to be seen. And if you want your CD in the Virgin Megastore, you've got to cut a deal with a big label. That's the toll booth.
The entertainment companies are using the piracy issue to cover up their other agenda, which is to avoid open distribution at all costs.
And their biggest allies aren't corrupt senators, they're whiny assholes with a sense of entitlement, sitting on their asses, believing that the world owes them free eminem records.
The arguments for stealing marginalizes the people who make it. It marginalizes the public's interest. It's suicidal politically and morally bankrupt.
Take my karma. I don't care.
You're allowed to give your music away. However, the reason Napster was so popular was because of the illegal mp3 trading. There were and are venues (such as mp3.com) that try and keep things constrained to legal mp3s. Furthermore, the filtering imposed on Napster (which is a big part of what killed it) should've theoretically had a minimal impact on legitimate trading (but unfortunately, the filtering was overly broad). So in reality, the only reason why Napster was a good venue for legitimate trading was because it was using illegitimate trading as a form of marketing/bundling.
Also, it's my understanding that Napster did get nailed for breaking laws relating to contributory and/or vicarious copyright infringement. These issues were hashed out on Slashdot awhile back. It basically boiled down to Napster being aware of the copyright infringement going on and unwilling take means to stop it when confronted on the issue.
"Thank god the industry shut them down... now that piracy has been stopped they can all sleep much better."
Remember what happened when Carnegie endowed thousands of libraries across the United States? Well, people could then get their books free! And the obvious thing happened: The book publishing industry never sold another book, except to libraries.
Not!
Then there was that second socially destructive technological advance, TV. Once people could get their entertainment at home, and without paying extra, the movie industry almost completely disappeared, except for sales to TV broadcasters.
Not!
Well, the movie industry was already dead, of course, but another technological advance, the VCR, killed it again. When people found that they could record perfectly good movies on video tape, they stopped paying for movies! It was completely logical and understandable that this would happen.
Not!
The fact is, no one completely understands the issues surrounding intellectual property. We can't write a good law if we don't understand. Someone must sit down and do the thinking, and the thinking hasn't been finished.
The music industry is so abusive that I tend to stay away from music. I find that, when I have access to free music (tapes and CDs from the library), I become interested in a particular type of music and buy more, not less. Maybe there are a lot of people like me, because, during the height of Napster, the U.S. music industry had its best year.
Profit.
Napster's business model was based on stealing. Let me repeat that one more time, just in case you didn't get the point. Napster's business model was based on stealing.
While it's likely that some of the people on the Underground Railroad were in it for the money, helping slaves isn't usually a prime source of income. You'd think turning water into wine would be a money-maker, but Jesus wasn't trying to undercut Manishewitz. And the Boston Tea Party/American Revolution? Becoming independent nearly bankrupted the colonies/states (and many of the Founding Fathers did indeed die broke). Ever heard that popular expression from the 1790's "not worth a Continental?"
Napster deserved to go under. It's a shame that BMG has rescued them. Personally, I think it shows that BMG is either pretty stupid (as there is nothing in Napster's technology that couldn't be replicated in a matter of weeks by a competent programmer) or that they have a LOT of money to throw around.
-jon
Remember Amalek.
I've been trying to find blues travelers cover of johnny b. goode for 3 years now. the only place I've EVER found it was on napster. it was from a tape someone made at a concert. imagine john popper soloing on that song with his harp going at 3 times the normal tempo.
I'd gladly PAY for that song, however I've yet to find a place that sells it, including www.bluestraveler.com
Napster served one purpose and one purpose ALONE for me- rare bootlegs of songs the bands never put on cd. Oh, that and john mayer
Looking for Book Reviews? Check out Literary Escapism.
Yes, but if you drink at a bar, drive, and kill 20 schoolkids, why is the bartender sued?
--- http://foo.ca
The Boston Tea Party was illegal and involved stealing."
Sure, and everything that Albert Fish, Ed Gein, and Paul Bernardo did was illegal, too. That doesn't mean it was right.
In this case of copyright law, there's this great notion that if you don't agree, you can just refuse to play the game. Just as Richard M. Stallman takes a strong position against commercial software without resorting to piracy, you can elect to only download music from artists who make it freely available. Even better is the fact that you don't have to worry about the interoperability concerns that plague the software realm of this issue -- there's no real equivalent to someone emailing you an MSWord document.