[Napster] 11 - End of the Road.mp3

psoriac writes "Looks like the long sad saga of Napster is drawing to a final close; after being shut down by the courts, losing its execs, filing for chapter 11, and having its sale to Bertelsmann AG blocked, the remaining physical assets of Napster are being sold at auction by Dovebid. The auction site is close to my house; I think I'll stop by and pick up some memorabilia."

Comments

Dovebid

[GigsVT]

Did anyone buy any of the Enron stuff from Dovebid when that went down a while back?

The main thing that discouraged me, other than lack of money, was the insanely high minimum proxy bid. Most of the stuff wasn't worth that much.

It was also confusing the way they listed a lot of identical items seperately, and then also had "lots" but apparently the minimum bid was still something like $250 for each item in the lot, not the lot as a whole.

Re:Dovebid

[junkgoof]

My experience with end-of-company auctions is that furniture is cheap, but anything with a power supply goes for more than it is worth. Resellers bid until the price is reasonable, and they take the lot if they get it. People who don't know what hardware is worth get carried away and bid more than they could buy the stuff for new. Doesn't apply to high-end hardware (Sun boxen go relatively cheap), but only high-end stuff goes cheap. Sun workstation, expensive, Sun tape robot, massive storage system, or massive server, cheap relative to real price (who has $20 000 to bid, other than resellers?).

Re:Dovebid

[GigsVT]

I sorta got that impression from their FAQ that said something like "If you are looking to get something for a lot less than it's worth, don't waste your time and ours."

Most of my experience is with storage unit auctions, I really get into those when I have some extra cash.

It seems the opposite is true there, anything with a power supply goes for pennies on the dollar, but furniture and hard goods get bid up a little high, especially if they look like real wood and not that pressboard junk.

That's for the ones where they actually unload the unit before bidding and let you bid on lots they make up on the spot, which is exceptional, but my favorite kind. Most unit auctions are blind, you just get to stick your head in the unit, then they start the bidding.

Different class of bidders of course, I've seen people at storage unit auctions that I have a hard time believing they even have a house capable of containing the amount of junk they buy. :)

I even saw people bid up a unit full of dirty old matresses once. That was about the most hilarious thing. I bet the previous owner of the unit just saw it as a cheap way to dispose of the things, since the landfill makes you pay to get rid of that kind of stuff, and charities won't touch those.

Re: Dovebid

[Black Parrot]

> Did anyone buy any of the Enron stuff from Dovebid when that went down a while back? The main thing that discouraged me, other than lack of money, was the insanely high minimum proxy bid. Most of the stuff wasn't worth that much.

For some reason I find it unsurprising that Enron's stuff was overvaluated.

Re:Dovebid

[Lumpy]

not only that but dovebid add's another 15% on top of it to the bidder..

that is a fricking crock... the cost of the biddind shoudl come out of the sellers not the bidders...

dovebid = ebay with added ripoff features.

Besides all that equipment is horribly out-of-date now. and unfortunately.. it will go for way higher than it is worth.. (workstation? not more than $200.00 with monitor and keyboard... I DONT care what it is... this is a liquidation auction.)

Featured Items - nice!

[eastbam]

Cisco Systems Switches, Routers and Firewalls
Sun Microsystems
VA Linux Servers
Network Appliance Servers
EMC
Dell Servers and More!!
Desktop and Notebook Computers By Apple, Dell, Hewlett-Packard and Others!!
Monitors
Printers and Faxes By Hewlett-Packard, Canon, Brother and Others!
Hundreds Of Napster Logo'd Shirts, Hats, Jackets and More!!

Re:Featured Items - nice!

[netsharc]

The Equipment Catalog on the right side of that page details what they really have.. mmm yummy hardware.

Re:Featured Items - nice!

[sg_oneill]

Actually I bet the #1 Valuable asset Napster have is its trademark. If I had a coupla hundred K lying around , I'd snap the name up without blinking. It has gotta be worth a mint.
The company may suck, but the names gotta be worth a mint.

Re:Featured Items - nice!

[Ponty]

Hehe. I want a "Apple G4 Descktop With Up to P2 400mhz 128 MB 9 GB Of Total Storage."

Re:Featured Items - nice!

[Anonymous Coward]

No, the trademark has alredy been sold.

The Ajax Novelty Item Manufacturer, Inc. of Chicago, Illinois has bought the 'Napster' brand. They plan to come out soon with the Sean Fanny "Napster" vibrating butt plug.

Re:Featured Items - nice!

[Kiwi]

That link does not work in Mozilla. thos one does

- Sam

Really too bad...

[Silas]

It's really to bad that things ended this way. I'd suggested back in April '01 that they call it quits on their own before The Gub'ment made everything so difficult. Excerpt: Some things change our lives so significantly that they deserve better than to be trampled out of existence by the changing face of subtle bureaucratic oppression.

A bit dramatic perhaps, but I continue to think that they should have gone out with their proverbial heads held high, instead of after this miserable sequence of events...

Re: Really too bad...

[Black Parrot]

> Excerpt: Some things change our lives so significantly that they deserve better than to be trampled out of existence by the changing face of subtle bureaucratic oppression. A bit dramatic perhaps...

Not IMO. I think this is sad because Napster was the most innovative use of the internet since the WWW came along. And notably, it started out as a garage app rather than as the effort of some big software machine. In the IP age it's the big businesses who are breaking up the machines that scare them.

Re:Really too bad...

[the gnat]

I have no sympathy for Napster. The product was innovative, the business plan was crap. It was just another friggin' dotcom that got too arrogant and fucked up, and I'm amazed that Slashdot readers have so much sympathy for it. Think about it, people: their entire existence as a corporation was built on trading other companies' IP freely over the Internet. They were going to make money off music piracy. They weren't a p2p network, so they didn't even have the excuse of not controlling their users. There may have been legitimate uses of Napster, but those weren't going to ever keep the VCs happy. Sorry, they deserved to burn, and get replaced by something better and less oriented towards IP violations.

This is not the same as the RIAA going after colleges or the Rio makers, or the MPAA and DeCSS, or all the TV networks and SonicBlue. This is like going after the people burning VCDs of Harry Potter over in East Asia.

Re:Really too bad...

[octalgirl]

Some things change our lives so significantly that they deserve better than to be trampled out of existence by the changing face of subtle bureaucratic oppression.

Agreed. To me there are only 3 major breakthroughs in personal computing technology (and Windows isn't one of them). They are Netscape - literally changed the world (doesn't matter that Mosaic came first, Netscape is the one that did it), Doom - literally exploded first person, multi-user gaming and is the foundation of a multi-billion dollar industry, and Napster who completely 'rocked' the world of content connected computing (CCC - did I just make that up?). If you look back at Doom, how grainy the graphics, limited function etc, and compare to today's spectacular graphics, ability to swim, side step, etc. Netscape and the first web pages - grey, simple, one font, no indents or bullets. Now we have interactive pages, e-commerce, etc. Napster never got to become what it could have been. Just like early explorers confronting something with teeth, the **AA shot it dead before finding out if it was friend or foe.

Re:Really too bad...

[Silas]

I'm not making any claims about the details or the legitimacy of their business plan. With most issues like this, there are enough gray areas that it would be difficult to debate the merits without resorting to baseless speculation. I just wanted to point out that Napster's particular chronology doesn't have to be the fate of all P2P file sharing technologies, if we can correctly distinguish between the purpose of a given technology, and how it's actually used.

Re:Really too bad...

[the gnat]

I agree that P2P technologies don't have to meet the same fate. This doesn't contradict my point at all though- Napster's success was based on illegal file sharing. That's what made them so popular, which in turn brought in the VCs. Not the "promise of the Internet" or any such garbage. When legal file sharing is more popular than illegal file sharing on the major P2P networks, you may resume whining about the sad fate of Napster.

Hrmm

[acehole]

I wonder if Metallica will sign any of the memorabilia ;)

Re:Hrmm

[dr_dank]

No chance of that. The band had to sell their pens just to make ends meet, thanks to piracy. They had some markers awhile back, but they used them up making signs that said: "Will rock out for food".

not a big deal

[jacquesm]

You should look at this like the demise of Hispano-Suiza, they were fine cars in their time but when they passed it was not quite the end of personal mobility.

And Napster won't be the last peer to peer technique that goes under, but one of these days we'll cobble something together that is *really* beyond shutdown. The only major problem so far seems to be that for the creator of that piece of software there will be no income to be made (he/she can't control access to it either).

Maybe freenet will be the one, maybe not.

But that is just one aspect of the technological war, the other one is that even a perfect peer to peer protocol / search engine is still vulnerable to all kinds of attacks by those with enough money (such as RIAA) or those with enough time on their hands (like the sicko's that try to destroy IRC) and that will probably be the next frontier,
to maintain data integrity, and to be able to search and destroy bogus clients and their malicious payloads without centralised control.

Bah

[iomega]

i made do before, during and after napster,

there was always a way to get music, and there always will be.

one strange thing is, i dont remember such horrible queing in napster, like there is in kazaa, the wait rivals that of certain extremely busy irc channels.,

I wonder if there is Data in tha HDs

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder if there are mp3s left in the hard disks?

In other news...

[ActiveSX]

from the wiping-a-single-tear-from-my-cheak dept.

Taco still can't spell. Perhaps there's going to be a spell checker up at auction. We can only hope.

Re:In other news...

[ActiveSX]

TheMacMind

Except:

1. It's not that popular
2. It's not much of a web site either
3. Oh hell, these retarded teenagers spell worse than Taco and Co.

Alright, I'll shut up now.

We can sleep better now

[Lxy]

Knowing that the RIAA has put an end to piracy. No more downloading MP3s for us, we have to go buy our music.

Good place for a slashdot-proof server

[rickthewizkid]

I would buy these, and sell them to people as webservers that can take even the worst slashdotting... we know that these machines were able to take the loads placed on them when they worked for Napster!!!

Yes, I know it's offtopic, but I'm trying to be funny on a Sunday morning... cut me some slack

RickTheWizKid

I love typos.

[httpamphibio.us]

* All items will be sold at public auction on the date(s) specified above. You can bid via webcast or by attending the auction in person. If you CANNOT ATTEND the auction, you may place a proxy bid prior to the sale. Webcast bidding requires 1) a unique bidder number for each auction and 3) an open telephone connection with a touchtone phone. To begin, click the registration link to the right. Click here for additional help.

Good thing there's no step 2. I HATE second steps.

Re:I love typos.

[IIRCAFAIKIANAL]

Actually they forgot 2 and 4.

(don't say it)

2) ???

(I said don't say it)

4) Profit!

(Great, he said it. Mod his ass DOWN!)

And we should be sorry... why?

[IIRCAFAIKIANAL]

Yes, I hate the RIAA and it's ilk. Yes, I hate the way they have dragged their feet with online options. I hate the way they have been pushing copy-protected cd's and I hate the industry in general. I hope it does die and a bunch of smaller labels rise from the ashes - ones that don't buy the souls of the artists that help make them money.

But that doesn't excuse Napster. They were a corporation, not an activist group - they made money by helping people violate copyright. Yes, I am aware that many people used Napster to trade non-copyrighted music - but for the most part, it was all the stuff that is being sold in stores right now (right then).

And to those of you that think that we should be able to just violate copyright because we don't like the content controllers, well, then fuck the GPL, right? Let's just use someone elses work for profit there too!

Re:And we should be sorry... why?

[PaleBoy]

There are a lot of reasons why stealing music is the preferred method for basically this whole upcoming generation.

a)We are aware of actually how much money it takes to create a cd. We all have cd burners, and know how cheap the media is. Many of us even have friends that have their own hobbled-together studios, and can record their music in their basement. We know that we are getting totally and utterly ripped off if we buy a cd.

b)We know that the artist will most likely hardly see a dime anyway. We've watched enough VH1 behind the music to know that even the most successful stars in the most popular music can wind up owing their record label money, unless they throw a tantrum and acquire a new contract. We know that the artists are getting ripped off, too.

c)We know that we aren't actually taking something physical. We are copying an arrangement of bits in a file into a replication on our computer. There is no cost to the company. There is only the supposed lack of profit, which assumes that we would have paid for the album just to hear that one song we downloaded. We are aware that Radiohead "released" Kid A on Napster before it was in stores, and that people went out and made it a collossal best seller. It had no marketing campaign to speak of. The only marketing used was word of mouth from people who had downloaded it.We understand the difference between music downloading and theft, and we aren't afraid to pay for music worth paying for.

d)We respect musicians. We don't really care if the day of super-millionaire pop-stars disappears. What we want to see is musicians with websites, where you can just pay them directly, per song, and support who you listen to, without the huge, outdated, corrupt, technophobic, greedy, bloated middleman that is the music industry. We will wait to support the artist, but we will not stop listening to music.

Re:And we should be sorry... why?

[IIRCAFAIKIANAL]

Geez guy, way to strawman me. I only said that we shouldn't feel sorry for Napster, a company that (arguably) made money by helping others violate copyright.

a)We are aware of actually how much money it takes to create a cd. We all have cd burners, and know how cheap the media is. Many of us even have friends that have their own hobbled-together studios, and can record their music in their basement. We know that we are getting totally and utterly ripped off if we buy a cd.

This is no different than the current garment industry. People pay premium for a swoosh on their track pants, some woman in indonesia gets screwed, and Phillip Knight laughs all the way to the bank. But nobody seems to give a shit. I find it hilarious that everyone here gets mad at the MPAA/RIAA when we have companies that are screwing millions just so we can have our coffee, our oil, and our Levi's.

b)We know that the artist will most likely hardly see a dime anyway. We've watched enough VH1 behind the music to know that even the most successful stars in the most popular music can wind up owing their record label money, unless they throw a tantrum and acquire a new contract. We know that the artists are getting ripped off, too.

Yes, that's why I hope big media dies. But it won't because nobody cares. Fuck, I don't care - compared to the injustice that other companies dish out it's small potatoes.

c)We know that we aren't actually taking something physical. We are copying an arrangement of bits in a file into a replication on our computer. There is no cost to the company. There is only the supposed lack of profit, which assumes that we would have paid for the album just to hear that one song we downloaded. We are aware that Radiohead "released" Kid A on Napster before it was in stores, and that people went out and made it a collossal best seller. It had no marketing campaign to speak of. The only marketing used was word of mouth from people who had downloaded it.We understand the difference between music downloading and theft, and we aren't afraid to pay for music worth paying for.

Nobody used the t word. I did not say anybody was stealing. I said they were violating copyright. Big difference, though a lot of people gloss over it. I didn't in my post. Incidently, if Radiohead released Kid A on napster, one could arguably say that the people downloading it were not violating copyright (that is, if Radiohead owns the copyrights to their music) - bad example. In any case, if the copyright holder says "do not distribute my content" you are violating copyright and are (arguably) a criminal - end of story, whether it ultimately helps them or not.

d)We respect musicians. We don't really care if the day of super-millionaire pop-stars disappears. What we want to see is musicians with websites, where you can just pay them directly, per song, and support who you listen to, without the huge, outdated, corrupt, technophobic, greedy, bloated middleman that is the music industry. We will wait to support the artist, but we will not stop listening to music.

That's essentially what I said. Seriously, did you even read my post?

Re:And we should be sorry... why?

[IIRCAFAIKIANAL]

You could just take the modified version right back, and profit from it yourself!

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't it be more like "yeah, I used your source code in this software I am selling and no, I'm not releasing the source code" then they are violating the GPL and there would be nothing the original authors could do without copyright law.

Don't get me wrong, there are problems with copyright, but I view it as ultimately necessary (though not in it's current form).

Hell, even with copyright laws there are examples of people abusing the GPL (no specific ones handy, but don't just take my word for it - check google or something :) so without copyright it would have even less protection against abuses.

Wait, is this a troll?

Re:And we should be sorry... why?

[Alsee]

But that doesn't excuse Napster.

Oh yes, Eeeeevil Napster.

What exactly did they do? They made a program that lets you move files across the internet. I have about 10-12 programs that do that. Everything from IRC to OutlookExpress to game services. That's all the internet does, move data from one place to another. And letting people designate arbitrary files to move is basic functionality for hundreds of things.

So, was anything different about their program? They specialized in one file format which isn't particularly unusual. Even if that was Eeevil they could always generalize to all file formats like more recent P2P programs.

Anything else? It included search functions. Ooooo! Searching is Eeeevil. Lets all go lynch Google while we're at it. I've found quite a few MP3 files using Google.

You may as well outlaw the internet itself for contributory infringement. It would shut down every single P2P service in shot. It would solve plenty of other problems too.

-

So now all muscians are compensated fairly.

[gelfling]

Whew - sure as shit glad we dodged that bullet.

Thank god and the record industry for making the world a better place.

Request

[dynayellow]

Hey, can some of you go buy this stuff, then make a copy and give it to me for free? Thanks.

IP

[luphus]

Haven't seen this mentioned yet, but last I heard Roxio is buying Napster's intellectual property. Not sure what they intend to do with it though :)

-nwp

Re:Bout Time

[Ponty]

It actually appears to be. I don't really want to download it and find out if it's really "Debbie Does Dallas," but there are a few different things that claim to be such.

Sorry. It might not be pleasant, but it's best to be accurate.

Re:Ridiculous

[Jugalator]

You're right...

eeh?

I didn't know Napster was *that* big until now... jeez

What happens to the owners?

[The Moving Shadow]

Does somebody know what happens to the people who started Napster? Will they spend the rest of their life paying off their debts? Will no bank ever going to supply them credit again? Does setting up such a groundbreaking company and failing affect the rest of your life?

If it does, i suggest them writing a book "The Woes of Napster - The Secrets revealed" ;)

Re:What happens to the owners?

[bedessen]

MSNBC interviewed Sean Fanning and there was a corresponding Slashdot story about two months ago. Pay attention. :-)

Re:Bout Time

[Erik Fish]

It's probably the Ralph Bakshi animated version.

More on Roxio

[Kommet]

I tried to submit this story to Slashdot twice (not complaining, just stating), once when I couldn't tell anyone that Roxio was buying Napster, just that "someone" was, and a second time when the press release hit the wire.

Roxio is trying to buy "substantially all" of Napster's assets which is mainly the Napster name and the IP patents Napster has. Roxio passed on the physical assets (obviously) as it didn't need them, and on just buying the company outright as it didn't want to inherit Napster's debt load or pending lawsuits. The proposed sale is for $5 million in cash and 100,000 shares ($300-$400 thousand), and needs to be approved by the Delaware bankrupcy court handling Napster's bankrupcy.

What they intend to do is "secret" until Napster is actually bought, but with a reasonable assumption or two you can figure it out. Roxio's business is computer software, and about 40% of their income used to come from OEM bundling of lite versions of the software with computers and CD-R/RW drives. When the PC market took a dive, the OEM agreements made less, but also slowed the rate at which new users were upgrading from the lite to the standard version of the software which further reduced revenue. If you look at the income they reported this last summer, it was well below expectations and at that point the stock dove from the $16-$18 range to the $3-$5 range.

Roxio needs/wants a source of income that is not tied to how often people buy new computers or CD burners. A subscription music service may just be the ticket. Remember, Roxio has agreements and contacts with all the major recording labels and even with some movie houses.

For the record, I don't work for Roxio, I just know about an eighth of the company.

the incredible expanding disk drive

[nutznboltz]

(9) - SUN NETRA D130 DISK ARRAYS, with up to 36GB of Total Storage

What's that 3 disk raid?

Works fine with Netscape 6

[Animats]

Reads fine with Netscape Navigator 6, although I had to disable WebWasher to allow the Javascript-based redirection.

Look at all those VA Linux servers! Over 150 of them for sale. Somebody actually did buy VA Linux products!

Re:Napster is alive

[nutznboltz]

I'd say so:

http://www.napigator.com/servers/

Napster is still around for the forseeable future

[0x0d0a]

Napster the network, the service, that is. I'm connected to 11 Napster networks at this moment, thanks to the excellent Linux lopster client.

Yes, Napster *Inc*'s Napster servers no longer exist. A large number of independent servers have sprung up, however, mostly overseas where the RIAA can't get at them (particularly, for some reason, Italy). The content available is not as comprehensive as it was in Napster's heyday, but if you're looking for a piece of music, it's likely still available.

I disagree

[0x0d0a]

We are aware of actually how much money it takes to create a cd

This is more than a little misleading. You know how much it takes to burn a CD. You are ignoring the costs of production, marketing (we all hate it, but it's necessary to compete against others that market), and the fact that music is *not* fungible. When you want a CD, you don't want just any CD. You want a particular CD by a particular artist. IMHO, being "ripped off" happens when the other person misleads you about what you're getting. You *know* that you're paying a premium for a particular CD because you can only get it from one place. You aren't being "ripped off".

We know that the artists are getting ripped off, too

Sure, but you using it as a justification to pirate their music is laughable. You aren't going to do anything to drive the associated organizations out of business, you aren't sending a check to the author...you just want "free" music. Admit it.

We know that we aren't actually taking somethign physical...There is no cost to the company.

That is simply stupid. The entire concept of property is completely artifical anyway (remember the deals struck with the American Indians by settlers over land rights, which frequently the natives didn't comprehend?). To say that "intellectual property" or a potential customer has no value or legitimacy is just dumb.

And if it's worth *downloading*, why isn't it worth *paying* for?

We respect musicians

You can send them a check now. Have you?

Re:I disagree

[0x0d0a]

And you know what? [Basement studios] sounds fine

I tend to think that many industries blow too much money (*cough* IT *cough* Sun) on overpriced services or hardware, but that doesn't mean that you can always just rip out the expensive studios and throw in a basement studio. I'm not a sound engineer...anyone here care to comment?

only real marketing they did WAS P2P sharing

But the fact that P2P sharing can generate sales doesn't mean that it can replace existing marketing. Using a little oomph and connections and some money to get reviews of your music tossed around or played is hard to compare to.

You present a culture that didn't even believe in property owning, and then state that differing viewpoints copyright are "just dumb"

I'm just pointing out that the claim "that nothing is being taken", doesn't really make a lot of sense as an argument. We feel that it's certainly wrong to steal products from a store, but who owns them, their invisible property nature, is artificial and comes from humans. Many proponents of IP elimination draw a picture of a huge gap between copyright infringement and taking posession of a physical object -- that the first isn't really wrong at all, but the second is. My complaint is that they're both (intellectual property and physical property) simply constructs we've built up because they're convenient and improve our lives. To point at one as inherently invalid is silly. The justification for using either is the same.

it is almost certainly illegal to directly compensate them

Yes, but so is just grabbing a copy of their music -- you do that. You don't have to say "Here's $15 for the album I didn't buy." If you simply send them a check that says "I'm a fan, here's a tip", there's nothing that anyone can say or do to stop that.

As for getting the addresses of musicians...yes, I can see how that would be an issue.

Re:I disagree

[cant_get_a_good_nick]

You are ignoring the costs of production, marketing

Why do CDs cost more than tapes? Tapes are much more complicated to manufacture, yet cost less. Even ingoring the complexity of a tape, there are fewer and fewer tapes sold, making for decreased economies of scale, so they should be pricier, yet cost $1-$2 cheaper, always. You market the albium (and the singer, but thats another diatribe) not the medium, so that has no bearing on costs.

Who creates the marketing needs? The labels themselves. In the need for bigger and bigger blockbusters, each album now has to sell a million records or it will never make back the initial costs. It's only the bottom line now (one could argue it's ALWAYS been just the bottom line) so you have musicians being marketed as products now, not artists. Witness "American Idol", "Making the Band". NSync, 98 degrees, NKOTB, New Edition, 3rd Bass - all manufactured bands. Created not by the artists but by the labels. They wanted a quick buck from these guys, so instead of having the guys start small and build a fan base, you spend and market the hell out of them to get name recognition, and hope that the music is good enough that some folks even might buy it. The musicians not good enough? Well, ask Milli Vanilli if that stood in their way. They were cute, they got on stage. Hmm, my point in all this rambling? The marketing cost monster is a problem, but it's one of the labels' own creation.

Public Enemy released There's a Poison Going On on Atomic Pop, an internet only label (which has since gone under). It cost $8 to download, $10 if you wanted a physical CD, which had a value add - an autograph by Chuck D. (which I have - there's a good way to have people spend money, give them a value add). The same CD cost $18 at Virgin megastore. What costs, marketing or otherwise, did they do to warrant the $8-10 markup, esentially a 100% markup?

I'm not defending piracy. Dorks who say "well I'm stealing this because they're ripping off the artists!' are just rationalizing bullshit artists. But the recording industry also has it's faults. If they didn't price CDs well past their production costs, there would be less incentive to steal (though the stealing would still be equally morally wrong). This is just one of those situations where nobody is completely clean, and having either side talking about how dirty the other side is doesn't clean anybody up much.

Pieces of History

[serutan]

I think of Napster as the first battle in the war of big media vs the public. Big media may have killed Napster, but the fight made tons of people aware of file sharing, and a lot of information has come out into the open about the nature and history of copyright, the relationship between people, their culture, money, and the powerful few who want it all, and the extent of corporations' leverage over our lawmakers. A lot of good will come out of this that I'm sure was completely unintended by people like Hilary Rosen and Jack Valenti. To me the Napster final auction is kind of like when people were selling bits and pieces of the Berlin wall.

On the other hand, I tried to post a story about the DoveBid auction when it was first announced 3 days ago, but it got rejected. See? See? It was worth space on /. after all!