Slashdot Mirror
New Legit Napster Service Coming
Serith submitted a CNN story talking about the new
Napster Service. This is of course an attempt to legitimize music sharing. Provided the price point is fair and paying is convenient, I'll be first in line. Of course the odds of that happening seems awfully weak.
We authorize you to distribute this audio file among your employees:
the_sound_of_a_boot_meeting_a_dead_horse.mp3
Cordially,
The RIAA
Do you like German cars?
That did not stop music publishers from suing Bertelsmann for $17 billion last week, arguing that by throwing Napster a lifeline in 2002 it was responsible for the service continuing its illegal infringement.
this reminds me of when the photocopiers in the libraries had to have huge disclaimers about copying any material that was copyrighted.
i can only hope that personal use will extend to purchased music as much as it did to purchased books. as much as i hate these lawsuits, it is in the courts that the personal use issue actually finds some teeth.
Of course the odds of that happening seems awfully weak.
When the headline's only a few sentences long, do we need this sort of pessimism occupying so much space?
I for one think there's plenty of promise in a pay-per-download music service. If it's easy to use, and, here's the most important part: accessible to teens and pre-teens. Allow for a charge account to be set up by the parents, with the kids spending "credits" to download music, games, cell ringers, etc. Are you listening, BMG?
If you fall off a building, go real limp, because maybe you'll look like a dummy and people will be like hey, free dummy
I find the fact that Roxio has hired X-napsterite Shawn Fanning as a consultant one of the most important points in the article, hopefully with his help we can finally have an easy to use legal way to acquire music.
paul reinheimer
Provided the price point is fair and paying is convenient, I'll be first in line.
Just out of curiosity, how many people consider a 'fair' price point to be greater than $0.00? Very few hardcore filesharers will actually buy music online, because the price is 'unfair'.
And how convenient does this have to be? Credit Card? (Oh, wait, we don't trust 'those people' with our credit cards.)
('Those people' being anyone who gets in bed with music producers.)
This is the real signature
(Beats those shadows on the cave wall, don't it?)
- The word is "insight". It isn't used at all in the linked article, and is misspelled twice in the original posting.
- Roxio, the company that took Easy CD Creator and turned it into an unstable piece of garbage is going to do something with Napster? Good luck.
- While occasionally, you'll find someone who says "The artists deserve to get paid for their work," most people say "CDs cost too much, and Kazaa, Gnutella, EDonkey, WinMX, etc. are free." If you really want to support an artist, download what you want from the P2P networks (or FTP or IRC), and send the artists a check in the mail. Cut out the middleman and show the RIAA that they aren't adding any value and don't deserve to get paid
</rant>Overrated / Underrated : Moderation
That's not really the point... Having cops doesn't stop crime from being commited, fire fighters don't prevent all fires, EMT dont... They know that can't stop file sharing, but stratigicly, isn't a P2P the first place to attack? I don't agree with what they are doing, and I don't really agree with why, but stratigicly, I think the front door is the one you want to close first.
IMHO
Ok. My Mom is the type of person who would never steal anything from anyone. Totally good soul . But even she sees no problem with getting CDs copied or songs downloaded form the Internet, in fact she gets me to do it all the time. Why? Because for decades the radio stations have convinced the general populace that music is free (after all, if you can listen to it wherever you want for no charge, isn't that free?). Most people do not mind listning to a few ads on the radio, in fact, many people enjoy advertisements. So with this general mindset that music doens't really cost anything, why would they be expected to pay for it? Ever since the 8 track tape was invented people have copying music. These people don't get (or care) that it is digital and therefore it is an exact copy, they just by default expect to be allowed to do it.
What is needed is a system for music downloads that satisfies the needs of the consumer and a fair renumeration to the artists involved. No commercial offering has come close to this - they are all doomed to failure until they do.
What, explicitly is needed:
Compressed AND un-compressed audio file for download
Artwork / track listings etc. to print
Nothing to stop you burning a CD
No watermarking
Affordable pricing that reflects the facts that:
You've bought your computer and internet connection and CD burner etc.
You've bought your blank media and printer and paper
Musicians give their music away on the radio all the time, and the consumer doesn't pay for this. This has devalued and / or shown the true value of music and it is a very low value.
The price of second hand CD's more accurately reflects a true market value of music
Do the sums yourself and even taking into account the costs of setting up the service, the price per song / per minute is going to be pretty low, but if the service / artist do a 50:50 split on that (before costs) I'd reckon that would be amicable.
Ofcourse, this would put record shops out of business, but that's their problem. They don't offer much useful anyway (unless they sell vinyl)
-- oldthinkers unbellyfeel ingsoc
No, no, no. "Napster" without file SHARING is not Napster.
Napster was never about "free music." Napster was always about community, about "sharing my collection--my very own, personal, idiosyncratic collection."
There is no way the record companies are going to provide the same variety or the same breadth of coverage as a bunch of dedicated enthusiasts.
Sure, I'll be able to get Britney Spears from this site--but am I really going to be able to get Arthur Askey? Or cylinder recordings by Billy Murray? Or sound effects? The Weavers' recording of "Tzena, tzena, tzena?" Bernard Cribbins singing "'Ole in the Ground?"
What, you say--you've never heard about them and don't care about them? Of course not. But on the old Napster there were people who did, and shared them with me. And you have a bunch of stuff of your own that you care about, that _I"ve_ never heard of. Maybe even stuff that isn't available on CD.
This new "Napster" is a one way road. It's going to be all about what the record companies push, and nothing about what the music buying public wants.
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
Roxio managed to buy most of Roxio's assets, but it did not assume any of the company's pending liabilities.
That's pretty nice I wish I could buy up all of my own assets and hot have to pay for any of my liabilities.
...because most people won't pay for what they can get for free otherwise. While the system may make some money, it won't even put a dent in copyright infringement. There will always be another free file sharing system. I've asked a number of my friends - most of who are not techie type people - if they would be doing it if they had to pay for their downloads. They all said no.
We can all scream bloody murder about how there are no pay systems, CD prices are too high, artists today blow, intellectual property rights are wrong, filesharing actually increases CD sales, capitalism is evil, whatever your favorite argument is...the fact is you can't beat free and as long as the people can get it for free, the majority of people will not use a pay service.
That's reality. Maybe not the reality in your head or on Slashdot, but the reality of the world.
Frankly, I think if anyone has a shot at making the pay-for thing work it's Apple. The only thing that will make music downloading worth paying for is ease of use. That is, finding what you want easily, with guaranteed quality, easy to burn a CD, etc. And I mean one-button simple. The best man for a job like that is the Big Steve.
The one thing I worry about is the idea that, according to rumor, they'll be charging ~ $0.99 per track. I think that's a bit steep unless they have some slick way of giving you album art and liner notes or other bonus materials.
I wish Apple and Roxio the best of luck. I really want to believe in pay-for-download music. I really want to believe that if you do this right, someone will pay for it.
You like your Macintosh better than me, don't you Dave? Dave? Can you hear me Dave?
I'm from Canada and I already pay money for my hard drives, my CDs and all my other storage space that goes to the RIAA. I personally don't feel that I need to pay any more so that I can use this media for the same intent (downloading/copying) as I've already paid for.
If they're gonna tax me for piracy, then it's my goddamned right to pirate.
I'm going to use p2p services and download all that I want, and it'll be perfectly legal, seeing as how I've already paid the RIAA, so why shouldn't I have a right to it?
Karma: Non-Heinous
"She added that the company was in discussions with the five largest record labels -- Vivendi Universal's Universal Music Group; Sony Music; AOL Time Warner Inc.'s Warner Music Group; Bertelsmann AG; and EMI Group Plc -- to license their music."
.mp3 collection is "recovered", songs I owned at one point but the medium became damaged or obsolete. If these songs are "intellectual property", then I legally own at least half of them. Why should I be charged twice?
.mp3 player...
What I originally liked about Napster was the fact I wasn't constrained to downloading from the traditional schlock the radio and MTV push on us. I'd say 80% of the music I've been introduced to in the last few years is thanks to Napster and Kazaa lite. I'd of never heard bands like Thursday, Death Cab for Cutie, or Rival Schools without digital music, now they're some of my favorite artists, all of whom I've attended their concerts. Now digital music is all I listen to, and I've been freed from listening to corperate schlock. I couldn't tell you who's on the Top 20 right now, nor have I watched MTV or listened to the radio for about 3 years (seriously).
It's the same problem in a different medium: push pre-processed garbage music down peoples throats. HELLO! That's why people aren't buying music in the first place! Why pay 17$ for a CD which you might listen to two songs on? Most of the time I get bored of that song after a month or two anyway.
The biggest thrill of Napster, though, was being able to get all those old songs you used to have, but your CDs were stolen/scratched/lost or you don't own a tape/record player. About half my
I wonder if their new ploy will work with my portible
"In a Democracy, people get the kind of government they deserve." -Winston Churchill
I always fealt that the easiest way for the record industry to counter this is to simply make legitimate purchase easier that p2p.
Imagine being able to walk into Best Buy (using a kiosk for the broadband impaired) or a simple web page and accomplish the following.
1) Design/burn your own music CD selected from the complete vast archives of the music biz.
2) Each song being 128k quality or better or varying based on cost
3) Each song costing anywhere between 49-99 cents each
4) Each song delivered in choice of format (.mp3 or wav etc...)
5) Provide some kind of e-receipt which you could use to re-download/burn music that you lost or damaged (eliminate need for "backup")
Then all they would need to do is promote the crap out of the service using all the money they saved from not suing the crap out of everyone.
---- "Logoff! That cookie shit makes me nervous!" - A. Soprano