Slashdot Mirror
The Rise and Fall of Napster
Jedi Paramedic writes "Boston.com has an interesting story about the rise and fall of everyone's favorite file-swapping service. Also the subject of a new book by Joseph Menn, the story goes into great detail about the unfortunate-but-heroic Shawn Fanning and his reluctance to admit that his uncle, who in the end masterminded little more than the lining of his own pockets, had taken advantage of him. From getting screwed in the original 70/30 split with his uncle to his uncle's refusal to loosen his iron grip on the company even at the expense of its very being, the article (and the book) go a long way in chronicling the rise and fall of Napster, and crediting Shawn for not airing the family's dirty laundry. An interesting and well-written read."
Its too bad Napster had to do music sharing. The technology between P2P networks pionered by Napster was something though. This type of network along with open souce and GPL software, along with MD5 checksums could be a great combination.
...watching the musical! :-/)
Seriously, doesn't this seem a little like 'great expectations' or something (only problem being I'm not sure if GE got made into an musical or if I'm getting it confused with something else.
The two "spotlight reviews" on Amazon are interesting.
napster's rise was stunning, as was it's fall - but it's left behined something that the riaa/mpaa CAN'T take away, and that is the concept of p2p sharing of media on the internet. pre-napster internet use and post-napster internet use are two completely different things for numerous age-groups now...
cheers,
i wish i was but oh well
Can anyone explane how Napster made money? AFAIR there were no ads on the site or in the client (save the cdnow link that was in later versions of napster). It obviously made some kind of money, however, because I remember hearing about how Shawn Fanning made a lot of money.
err, the uncle did it.
In all seriousness, GE sucked. I'd write a longer review, but this about sums it up.
You can't judge a book by the way it wears its hair.
...please scan it in, OCR it and "share" the contents with others on the net, because I don't think people should have to pay for it.
Seems though the RIAA succeeded in crushing it in doing so it has created a cultural icon that shall be remembered for years, even decades to come.
:)
Now, if we could just form a religion based upon the cat-like diety, perhaps we could defeat the DMCA as a form of freedom of Religion
but the only difference between Napster and shoplifting a CD is physical evidence.
yawn. mod parent -1, troll. No one can honestly say that they think that.
Here's a hint, if I shoplift a CD, the store doesn't have it anymore, if I use Napster, no one is deprived of anything. They're so completely different, not only are they in different ballparks, they're playing a different game.
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
So we can deduce Robin Hood, clue the name, had a better publicist than Napster?
I thought Napster was bloody awful.
Audiogalaxy was far superior in every way. It's a damn shame they got shut down. I think AG's model and design is the best starting point for the music industry to get into a paid-for music downloading service.
Unlike Napster, it just worked. I didn't have to sit around to make sure the download started and that I didn't get cut off, and I didn't have to find other sources. I just queued up as many tracks as I wanted, and AG made sure I got them.
-kidlinux.
You're right. It more like someone using your patent to build widgets, then not paying you a licensing fee.
Here's a hint, if I shoplift a CD, the store doesn't have it anymore, if I use Napster, no one is deprived of anything.
And that's where you're wrong. You are enjoying the fruits of someone else's labors, namely that of the artist, the producer, the sound mixer, the recording booth operator, the marketing company, and all the secretaries, managers, and janitors that work for the above companies. They all work for a living, and they get paid when people buy the music that you just stole.
That's right, you stole it. You now have something you didn't have before, and you didn't pay for it. Copyright law says you have to pay for it. Intellectual property law says you have to pay for it. Common decency says you ought to pay for it. And if the long arm of the law catches you, you can be damn sure they're going to make you pay for it.
Look, you can hate the RIAA/MPAA all you want. I have no love for them at all. I think CD's are ridiculously overpriced, that the companies are gouging us while providing us with horrid content. I think the MPAA's control over the DVD format vis-a-vis region coding, CSS, and Macrovision is one of the most belligerent things a provider can do to a customer. However, none of that gives me the right to steal from them, and it sure as hell doesn't give you any moral credibility to be justifying your theft.
If you had any morals or principles at all, other than your own self satisfaction at someone else's expense, you'd be content to simply boycott the labels you don't agree with and trade music from bands that allow you to legally do so. Instead, you're just content to be a thief, attempting to moralize your actions because it allows you to steal and feel smug about it.
Face it, information is not free, nor will it ever be free unless the owner of that information chooses to make it so. Information is worth whatever the owner wishes to charge for it, and the rarer it is, the more they can charge. If you don't like it, I'm sure there's some nice socialist country somewhere that'd take you in. North Korea, for example.
In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Sorry, but that's a poor example. What if no one liked your music? You'd still be broke, even without piracy. Hence, there is no implied contract here. A more realistic example would be if you put on a fireworks display, and charged people to sit on a grassy field and watch. Then, no one came because they all realized that the fireworks would be just as visible from another park that they could sit in for free.
The point that you're trying to make is that it's immoral to enjoy the fruits of someone's labor without compensating them for it. That's true. However, as Ronald Coase posits in his economic theory of externalities, a victim is rarely a simple innocent bystander. Most victims have put themselves in a situation where they will be victimized (Coase's classic example is that of the person who buys a house by an airport; he is a victim of noise pollution, but this is an issue he should have known about when he bought the house). In this case, the musicians are allowing themselves to be victimized by relying on an oudated economic model: profiting from the sale of pre-recorded music. The solution to this problem is not for people to hysterically shout "Stop pirating music!" The solution is to find a new model for the music industry to follow. Most likely, this will mean depending on live performances and merchandising, rather than recordings, for income. It will also likely mean that musicians of the future will have to accept lower incomes, the field will no longer be dominated by a few superstars, but by a larger number of middle class performers and an even larger number of hobbyists.
"The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
Sounds like an interesting read...Since I am morally opposed to paying book publishers...I was wondering if anyone knew where I could download a PDF copy of the book?
"So if I hire you and allow you to work for me for two weeks, but then deny you a paycheck, I haven't stolen anything from you, have I?" this is not theft, its breach of contract. major distinction.
tasty electronic music vittles
Theft, fraud (hiring someone then not paying), and copyright infringment are three different things. They require different methods of enforcement, and different levels of punishment. If I copy some of my CDs onto my hard drive so I can play them in any order I want, the RIAA may say this is "theft", but I didn't steal anything. If I play CDs on an anti-skip player and I don't pay the RIAA for "RAM buffer copies", I didn't steal anything.
Here is an example of why this line of thinking for copyrights is absurd:
Lets say some bloke writes a song with the phrase "my dog fell down and he can't get up." Let's call him Dogman. The song becomes a #1 hit. In certain situations, people start using the phrase. After a while, Dogman decides using this phrase is "theft", and everyone who does so should pay him $1 each time. Would you pay Dogman just for the "right" to utter a stupid phrase? What if your dog really did fall down and couldn't get up? Should you have to pay so you could tell people?
Yeah, my examples are more marginal than sending copies to 10,000 of your closest "friends". The point is the RIAA uses the term "theft" as newspeak to increase the range of copyright laws. Mass redistribution of music is "theft". Then any CD to tape (or CD) copying is "theft". Then storing your CD on a hard drive for convenience is "theft". Then any sort of "RAM buffer copy" is "theft". Then, any use of any words in any song is "theft".
I think the "information wants to be free" whackos are...well...whackos. If "information" is talking to you, or you think "information" has desires like a sentient being, then you really need to see a doctor. But it doesn't mean everything they say is wrong.
Furthurnet has (twice? three times?) removed all Phish shares because some moron put up a disc or two Phish was selling from their website. Everything on it is supposed to come from tapers trading shows where the bands authorize audience taping. Some good stuff, lotsa hippies.
Audiogalaxy... now that was a friggin' good filesharing service. Low-hassle, lots of rare stuff... excellent.
Daniel
Carpe Diem
Nobody has the right to a business model.
I couldn't agree more. However, the method to combat this business model is to boycott their products. By stealing their product, you are intrinsically admitting that their product has value (at least to you), otherwise you wouldn't do it. You have obtained something of value, yet have given nothing of value in return. This is a one-sided transaction no matter how you look at it.
If the artists don't get the money I would have paid -- boohoo, they can always get a real job or find some other way to make money
Would you listen to yourself for a minute? Can you grasp exactly what you just stated? Imagine for a minute that you were the person with the valuable commodity (say, your programming skills). You have just advocated that people have a right to your skills to use however they see fit, and you have absolutely no right to demand any recompense for it. That's beatiful! I'd love to have you working for me, since I'd never have to pay you!
Most talented artists don't make music for the money anyway.
That's a pretty big generalization. I'm sure interviewed all these artists and they responded in this fashion, right? Of course you didn't.
Regardless of whether they'd do it "for the money" or not, the point is it takes money to live. Without money you have no food, clothing, or shelter. Even musicians who compose because they love music must have a regular job to pay the bills. Professional musicians have devoted their lives to their music in lieu of a typical job, and you have no right whatsoever to pass judgement on the rightness of their choice -- it is their liberty to do what they like, just as it is your liberty to not partake of their product.
Sure, it is illegal to copy copyrighted stuff. But it is not immoral
That has got to be the most twisted, abhorrent, ridiculous statement I've yet to see in this argument. What you're proposing is tantamount to saying that no one has any rights to recompense for their works unless you say so. What arrogance you display!
In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
...instead of defending the ones we've taken apart.
If someone says "I'll play my song for you at your party, but you must pay me $20 per hour for my time", you're obliged to either pay them or they're not obliged to show up. You cannot take what someone else is offering without paying them what they're asking for it. If you do, you're stealing."
"It is the same way with any human (or group of humans) that has a skill that is in demand. Do you work for free? You must perform some work to pay for your car, apartment, etc. How would you like it if someone took your skills and failed to pay you? Oh, I forget, stealing is only okay when it happens to other people."
both of these examples would be a breach of contract, not a theft. do you not understand the difference?
tasty electronic music vittles
Sure, both were innovative but I doubt either would exist as the did/do now if it wasn't for IRC coming first. To an end user Napster was little more than an IRC network that gave file sharing priority over group chatting. ICQ is IRC with a foundation of individual chat instead of group chat.
Though that may be an oversimplification.
That rules. Your p2p client is better than your OS.