All The Rave

livegoats writes "No self-respecting culture maven can deny their love affair with Napster. If you weren't spending your spare time in the years 99-00 downloading MP3s like a champ, it's likely you were still in diapers or dancing with wolves. Oh, Napster, we loved ye when. Joseph Menn's All The Rave: The Rise and Fall of Shawn Fanning's Napster carefully chronicles the life of the company -- from its age of innocence, though its battle with the powerful music industry, to its slow unraveling in 2001, a foreshadowing event for the rest of the dot-com world." Read on for Livegoats' review. All the Rave: The Rise and Fall of Shawn Fanning's Napster author Joseph Menn pages 368 publisher Crown Publishing Group rating 7 reviewer Libe Goad ISBN 0609610937 summary If you love to read about the dot-com bust -- over and over -- this meticulously researched tome is for you. Keep a drink handy, however, it gets dry in parts.

One thing's certain: Menn, who covered Silicon Valley for the Los Angeles Times, meticulously researched his subject. The book is loaded with facts and figures, but more impressive is the level of National Enquirer-worthy details Menn milked from mountains of transcripts and one-on-one interviews.

Menn's discoveries can be described as nothing less than shocking, at least for anyone who hasn't followed the story blow-by-blow. We learn about Shawn's money-grubbing uncle, John Fanning, whose shady business practices cost the company numerous investors, but also the respect of his own family. Menn writes that at first Shawn Fanning was pleased when his uncle drew up papers incorporating Napster, Inc. Then the elder Fanning told Shawn he would be getting only 30 percent of the company. John Fanning would keep the rest. Shawn was stunned.

Menn also exposes Napster executives' ignorance of copyright laws, the company's pay-off to rapper Chuck D so he would publicly support file sharing and rockstress Courtney Love's flirtations with Shawn, whom she once introduced at an award show as her future husband.

With a boatload of rock stars and other curious characters, you'd think the spectacle of it all would overshadow the book's business patois. Menn attempts, valiantly, to do so, but it's still evident that All the Rave is a long-handed exercise in business reporting rather than a drama-filled account. There is little surprise in the overarching Napster story because most readers will know how the story ends before cracking open the front cover.

If you're still committed to All the Rave, the best reading takes place in two separate sections: the first on the peer-to-peer program's incubation, and the second on Napster's attempt to take on the well-muscled music industry.

In Chapters 1 and 2, Menn introduces Shawn Fanning, an unassuming high school kid who comes from humble beginnings. Though his life doesn't exactly make for a Horatio Alger story, it's interesting to see how Shawn stops pursuing a sports scholarship for college and instead focuses on computer programming.

After his uncle John gives Shawn his first computer, the aw-shucks kid from Massachusetts comes across a brilliant idea, peer-to-peer file sharing, which he develops with the help of friends in several online communities. The story is touching, and it's fascinating to take a behind-the-scenes look at how the program originated, first through Shawn and then as the product of a tight-knit online community.

Techies of all stripes will be amused as Menn attempts to make computer programming jargon edible to the mainstream reader. Just imagine explaining terms like IRC and warez to your grandma, and you'll have a good idea of the language in these beginning chapters. Despite a few cornball explanations, however, it's still refreshing to see past Napster's media hype and to see Napster for what it started as: a labor of love created by a kid who wanted nothing more than to take advantage of the online universe.

Following chapters barrel through the company's beginnings, dedicating much space to vilifying John Fanning, who seems to deserve every bit of consternation the reading public can muster. After the shock of the elder Fanning's behavior wears off, however, you'll find yourself dragging through painfully detailed accounts of acquiring executive and meetings with skeptical venture capitalists. Anyone who isn't utilizing All the Rave as a handbook on how not to run a business can skip to Chapter 7, in which Menn shifts the book's focus to Napster's delicate dance with the music industry. It's a Davey and Goliath tale for the 21st century. To accent the vastness of the undertaking, Menn dishes out a brief history of the music biz, offering such a compelling analysis of the Napster/music industry camps that it could easily be expanded to fill an entirely different book.

If you don't want to read at all, you can simply look at the pretty pictures midway through the book. Talk about a yearbook: there are pictures of Shawn's hacker pals, a photo of a wilting Lars Ullrich from Metallica, Jack Valenti and other corporate clowns, smiling like there was something to be happy about.

And maybe there was. In the end, Menn shows how Napster was, like other dot-coms, "little more than a publicly supported pyramid scheme, built on the long-true presumption that an even dumber investor was just down the road."

If you want a solid study on copyright law and running a business, Menn's read will not disappoint. If you're looking for a fluffy piece of literature that will keep you awake into the wee hours, try the one with the bespectacled boy on the cover. You probably know the one I'm talking about -- Harry something or other...

You can purchase All the Rave from bn.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.

Comments

Wha???

[GuyMannDude]

No self-respecting culture maven can deny their love affair with Napster. If you weren't spending your spare time in the years 99-00 downloading MP3s like a champ, it's likely you were still in diapers or dancing with wolves. Oh, Napster, we loved ye when.

When the hell did Jon Katz start submitting slashdot articles again?

GMD

Re:Wha???

[LordNimon]

No shit. livegoats just made it to my foes list. What a moron.

Re:Wha???

[Kai_MH]

That's kind of off-topic, yes? Who cares, anyways? The book review is here, and now I must go out and find this book.
I for one loved Napster, and continue to love Kazaa and IMesh, though they suck compared to Napster. Napster is the one... true... lust... I must have it back!

Re:Wha???

[GuyMannDude]

But on to the topic at hand -- um... I really never used Napster. I tried once and found that it didn't really have much worth downloading. Napster was good if you only wanted the top-40 of the day and didn't care if you got a song that was mislabeled, corrupted, incomplete or otherwise not worth a normal person's time.

Really? I always thought it was pretty good at helping me find obscure stuff I never would have thought of. I remember being bored one time and doing a search for "Star Trek" audio files. It popped up with a song named "Futile (Star Trek mix)" by a band named "Velvet Acid Christ". The Star Trek reference was because the song contained numerous samples from the ST:TNG episode "Best of Both Worlds" dealing with Picard's abduction by the Borg. I listened to the song and thought it was pretty cool. So I started looking around for more info on this band.

Needless to say, I would have never even heard of Velvet Acid Christ if it wasn't for Napster and the ability to search for any keyword whatsoever.

GMD

Re:Wha???

[GuyMannDude]

No shit. livegoats just made it to my foes list. What a moron.

That opening blurb just reeked of the same amateurish journalistic style as Katz. I don't see why he felt it necessary to make such a sweeping, rediculous and borderline insulting statement to start his review. Is it to try to convince us that Napster was some kind of important historical phenomenon and, therefore, we should read this review of a book about it? And if we didn't use Napster we were infants in diapers? Please. That kind of nonsense is not the way to start off any kind of article. That's pretty much the same kind of statement as Katz' "We can all agree that Columbine has changed the way that every single human being on the planet thinks about public education."

Story submitters: it's not necessary to try to place your articles in a larger context. We can do that for ourselves.

GMD

Re:Wha???

[PD]

Culture? That's not culture. Anything that you have to go to the store to buy, packaged in cellophane on a CD is not culture.

Culture is a part of who we are, and is free for any person to claim, just by being born and living in a society. To think that culture comes in a box or over a DSL line is just stupid.

Re:Wha???

[daeley]

No shit. livegoats just made it to my foes list. What a moron.

Let's see...User number over 600000 and no comments. Hey, it could be Jon Katz in disguise! ;)

Re:Wha???

[fyonn]

while napster was great, I personally preferred audiogalaxy. I found that a lot easier to find more obscure music on, not to mention that it had an open source client and you could use it at work and come home to find the files waiting for you. not to mention the great community that was there, and the suggestions of other tracks to listen to

I don;t suppose any of the current file sharers work like the old AG did do they?

dave

Re:Wha???

[Trifthen]

Forget Katz. I give a hearty "Fuck You" to the nauseating ass-hat "livegoats" for that bullshit introduction. How in the hell does an opinionated smarmy diatribe quallify as a book review?

Re:Wha???

[betis70]

>>Anything that you have to go to the store to buy, packaged in cellophane on a CD is not culture.

Sure it is. Part of the culture is the fact that we generally have to buy our material needs at a store. The clothes we wear, the way we interact with people, the fact that we drive cars instead of using sandled feet--all part of our culture. It may not be a part of our culture we like or feel a particular affinity towards, but it still is part of the culture.

But I'm only a trained anthropologist. What do I know?

Re:Wha???

[PD]

But I'm only a trained anthropologist. What do I know?

This is Slashdot! Apologise immediately for injecting facts into the discussion!

Re:Wha???

[selfabuse]

Actually, even the non 'Star Trek Mixes' of Futile have fun Star Trek samples in them. I'm a big fan of the genre, but unfortunatley that's about the only VAC song that I like. Funker Vogt and Wumpscut are a bit better, but that's my personal opinion.

Re:Wha???

[Miriku chan]

they stunk live when i saw them, back ages ago.

Re:Wha???

[another_mr_lizard]

The closest is soulseek - until recently it was mainly ex AG'ers on there. Instead of AG's groups it has IRC-style rooms for each style/genre of music.

No mass sending of files to people in the same room as of yet though......

Re:Wha???

[commodoresloat]

You obviously never used Napster in its day because you're dead wrong. The best thing about napster was the ability to find obscure and independent stuff. Speeches. Comedy sketches. Really old blues from the 1920s and 30s. Alternative dance, punk, hip hop, etc. Stuff from the 70s and 80s I had almost forgotten about. Parodies I never would have heard anywhere. Underground hip hop. Type in "DJ" or "techno" and download hour-long mixes by random DJs I've never heard of. Bootlegs and live performances (wihtout Napster I never would have known about the Jimi Hendrix/Jim Morrison bootleg "FITA"). Top 40, who cares, I can find that crap in a record store if I want it. But the beauty of Napster was its ability to function as a giant archive of just about everything I could think of. Today it's a lot harder to find obscure stuff on limewire or whatever; the top 40 dominates. The one thing the RIAA wanted to stop - largescale trading of top 40 pop - has only gotten more severe, while the thing that was really valuable - the availability of obscure and independent stuff - they effectively destroyed. Sad.

Re:Wha???

[s20451]

I don't see why he felt it necessary to make such a sweeping, rediculous and borderline insulting statement to start his review.

Check the e-mail address. The submitter is probably a she.

Re:Wha???

[SquadBoy]

Napster had several OSS clients and even a CLI. I used to ssh to home and do the same thing. As far as I know while AG had an official Linux client it was not open but I could be wrong. They both pretty much rocked.

Re:Wha???

[Guppy06]

""We can all agree that Columbine has changed the way that every single human being on the planet thinks about public education.""

Well, it did with me!

Before: "It fucking sucks!"

After: "It really fucking sucks!"

Re:Wha???

[Zeinfeld]

And if we didn't use Napster we were infants in diapers?

Yeah, like at the peak of the dotCOM bubble I realy needed to steal music through Napster.

I read the book, it is a lot better than the review (which admittedly says little). The thing that is so fascinating is that these people were trying to make money out of a business scheme which was completely and utterly whacko.

Napster was originally put together without any thought for the legality of what they were doing. When they went to look for funding they obtained a number of legal opinions which they treated in pretty much the same way the Bush administration handled intelligence on Iraqi uranium deals. They believed anything that they liked and ignored the vast majority that they disliked.

The basic business strategy was to make Napster so big that they could then deal with the record industry and dictate terms. So they refused to talk to the RIAA when they tried to talk.

The other surprising thing that came out of the book was the reason for Napster being granted an appeal against the interim injunction. This was touted as a huge vindication of Napster at the time. In fact what went on was that one of the judges on the appeals review board was big into copyright law and internet and saw the opportunity to be involved in a really important precedent setting rulling.

The story of the VC funding is equally depressing.

Re:Wha???

[miguelitof]

while napster was great, I personally preferred audiogalaxy. I found that a lot easier to find more obscure music on, not to mention that it had an open source client and you could use it at work and come home to find the files waiting for you. not to mention the great community that was there, and the suggestions of other tracks to listen to

I must be the only person here who didn't like Napster. Couldn't stand it. I used it once, then tossed it in favor of AudioGalaxy.

AudioGalaxy rocked, pure and simple. I cannot count the number of ultra-rare tracks that I found thanks to AG. And it was so easy... leave the Satellite running on my Linux box, then log onto their website from anywhere (work, home, school, parent's house) and add some more songs to the queue.

It was such a brilliant system that I actually subscribed! I was an Audiogalaxy Gold member right up to the day that they turned the service off. And I still miss it, right to this very day. [sniff]

The day that AG's service was shut down was the day that I started my boycott against the RIAA, actually. Up until that point, I bought three CDs a month, mostly of artists that I found on AG. Since then, I've switched completely to Independents.

I didn't spend 99-00 downloading from napster

[Anonymous Coward]

I was stuck on a 56k pay-per-minute modem back then. It was cheaper to buy CDs. I'm making up for it on DC now that I have 10Mbit though.

Decent book review

[preric]

I've already read this, and would say that's a pretty decent review, once you get around the fact that you just PAID for a book about napster

Re:Decent book review

[kzadot]

I will grab a copy once I see it on #bookz on undernet. That way I wont pretend to like it to justify my expense. I will be able to form an objective opinion. Its open source right? Well.. I havent seen a license suggesting otherwise, and it IS about napster.

Re:Decent book review

[reallocate]

Maybe you oughta shoplift it. After all, that was the napster business plan.

Re:Decent book review

[Anonymous Coward]

Go to the library. Yanno the library (a govt. institution) has a lot in common with Napster. In fact considering the only reason you need to return a book to the library is so that other people can use it (same thing as sharing the file after you've d/led it) I'd say the library is quite the file sharing program. Too bad the library doesn't bring the books to your house.

M.D. Inc

Re:Decent book review

[pcardoso]

no, the equivalent would be xerox-ing all the pages.

Re:Decent book review

[fobbman]

If we did steal the book, would Crown Publishing Group start printing up versions of the book with the lone phrase "What the fuck do you think you're doing?" printed repeatedly in it?

Re:Decent book review

[pimpinmonk]

1. Write book about napster 2. ??? 3. Profit!

Re:Decent book review

[Surak]

I've already read this, and would say that's a pretty decent review, once you get around the fact that you just PAID for a book about napster

I just got it off of Kazaa!

Re:Decent book review

[reallocate]

No, the equivalent is copying the book and standing on a street corner giving it away to anyone who asks.

Shoplifting is theft. Napster was based on theft. If you took all the CD's you own, bought a CD duplicator, and gave away exact copies of CD's to a global audience of complete strangers, that would be theft,too, of the CD publisher's, maker's and retailers's money.

Or, it's rather like buying legitimate tickets to the Movie-of-the Week, printing perfect counterfeit tickets, and giving them away free outside the theater.

Doing the same thing using the Internet as the delivery vehicle doesn't change a thing.

Re:Decent book review

[iamacat]

No, the equivalent would be reading a couple of chapters in the bookstore because the rest of the book is just a filler to raise its price.

Re:Decent book review

[_Sprocket_]

If we did steal the book, would Crown Publishing Group start printing up versions of the book with the lone phrase "What the fuck do you think you're doing?" printed repeatedly in it?

I downloaded "All_The_Rave_-_Joseph Menn(OCR,PR.V.1.0).pdf" and all it was just 863K of the phrase "What the fuck do you think you're doing?" repeated again and again. Maybe someone OCR'd the wrong book.

Or it might have been Madonna's little known SEX2 book.

Re:Decent book review

[micromoog]

So what you're saying is, the equivalent would be xerox-ing all the pages.

Re:Decent book review

[jdhutchins]

There's a big difference between the library and file-sharing. If I download a file off of kazaa, then I can use it, and the person who originally had it can use it two. That means two people are using the program, and the company was only paid for one copy of the program.

If I check a book out of the library, then no one else can use the book at the same time. One copy paid for, and only one copy is being used. I agree, in some ways they are the same, but in many ways they are different.

Re:Decent book review

[commodoresloat]

You make it sound like this is a bad thing about the electronic format. The beauty of electronic copies is that more than one copy can be in use at once. Our university library has a contract with a provider of electronic books that baffles my mind. We can use the books but only one person can "check them out" at a time. (I'm not sure how it works but they are copy protected). When an electronic text is in use it is unavailable to others. What advantage do we get from not having hardcopies of the books then? I don't get it. But my point is, this is a Good Thing about electronic copies, and it is nothing but the most closed-minded fear of change that makes people think we should artificially limit what we are technologically capable of just because it cuts into someone's obsolete business model.

Re:Decent book review

[thirdrock]

Or, it's rather like buying legitimate tickets to the Movie-of-the Week, printing perfect counterfeit tickets, and giving them away free outside the theater.

I'm not sure if you are trolling or just stupid. Printing counterfeit tickets is counterfeiting, not theft.

Copying CD's and selling them is copyright infringement, not theft.

Copying books and selling them is copyright infringement, not theft.

Shoplifting is theft.

Hey! One from three, maybe you were just trolling ....

Doing the same thing using the Internet as the delivery vehicle doesn't change a thing.

That's right, you are still wrong.

Interesting..

[grub]

Today we glamourize criminal behaviour the way they did for Bonnie & Clyde or Billy the Kid years earlier. Not to say downloading MP3s is tantamount to murder :)

Re:Interesting..

[argoff]

Yeah, but in this case the criminals write the laws, or live in hollywood.

Re:Interesting..

[wzm]

And that was a similar situation, interesting comparison. Bonnie & Clyde, Dillinger, etc. were all worshiped as heros, because the banks of the period appeared to have screwed over the common man, both through the events of the dust bowl (evicting people from their homes), and at the start of the depression, with the stock market collapse. Gangsters were viewed as fighting back for the common man.

Maybe people doing the same thing for groups such as Napster implies that a similar sentiment exists towards the RIAA/MPAA etc. Obviously the "crime" of those media industries is far less (abuse of artists, homogenization of radio, high costs), but a similar, though smaller, backlash is present.

Re:Interesting..

[tetra103]

Very insightful and well spoken. I couldn't agree more.

Culture maven

[easter1916]

A few points:
1) The word maven is very irritating
2) I used Napster only a handful of times because I regard illegal filesharing as theft
3) I don't consider myself a culture "maven" but I am into music
4) Dancing with wolves? What on earth are you talking about?

Re:Culture maven

[Anonymous Coward]

Copyright infringement, yes. Illegal, yes. Theft, no.

Re:Culture maven

[Xerithane]

2) I used Napster only a handful of times because I regard illegal filesharing as theft

It's not theft, but it is stealing. Theft is removing property, so that every part of the property is removed from it's former position. Steal is to take without right or leave the property of another.

My grassroots campaign to try to get people to acknowledge they are, in fact, stealing when they download music without license to that media. Join my campaign :)

3) I don't consider myself a culture "maven" but I am into music

I consider myself a culture muppet, and I love music.

4) Dancing with wolves? What on earth are you talking about?

Jon Katz, describing hippies.

Re:Culture maven

[Archangel Michael]

1) agreed
2) I have never used napster(or any other P2P)
3) I like music, but can take it or leave it. Silence is often better.
4) Hehehe

Re:Culture maven

[e2d2]

So you only stole files a few times? Hey I only beat a few people up so I'm clean like you..

The other sick depraved bastards stealing music from the mouths of those poor music industry blue-collar types. Not us though, me and you are the last of our type.

Re:Culture maven

[easter1916]

If you're running around the place beating people up, I suggest you get help.

Re:Culture maven

[mark_lybarger]

hey dude, obviously you don't get the point. you still obtained some songs using napster. weather it was 3 or 30,000, it's all copyright infringement (not theft). and that's what's illegal. it doesn't matter if you drive 80 to work every day or only the one day you were running late last week. it's still speeding and you can still get a ticket. etc, etc.

there's no implicit pardons for lack of volume copyright infringement, but typically them there law-yers are going to only prosicute those who will give them the biggest bang for the buck.

Re:Culture maven

[snol]

Theft is removing property, so that every part of the property is removed from it's former position. Steal is to take without right or leave the property of another.

Did you find those in a dictionary, or just make them up for your own convenience?

Theft:
1 a : the act of stealing

Re:Culture maven

[easter1916]

I did get the point; I was making fun of his analogy.

Re:Culture maven

[Xerithane]

Did you find those in a dictionary, or just make them up for your own convenience?

I bet your mother is proud of you, son. From m-w.com: 1 a : the act of stealing; specifically : the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it.

So, do you just like pasting parts of a definition while ignoring the rest of it? Definitions of stealing do not entail deprivation of property, just the unlawful taking. If you look up "take" it's easy to see it covers IP as well.

Re:Culture maven

[jfelix1010]

I bet your mother is proud of you, son. From m-w.com: 1 a : the act of stealing; specifically : the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it.

Your own definition seems to undermine your arguement. You can say that copyright infringement involves "taking", but the rightful owner is not being deprived of anything.

Re:Culture maven

[SN74S181]

theft \"theft\ n : the act of stealing
(c)2000 Zane Publishing, Inc. and Merriam-Webster, Incorporated. All rights reserved

Re:Culture maven

[Xerithane]

Your own definition seems to undermine your arguement. You can say that copyright infringement involves "taking", but the rightful owner is not being deprived of anything.

No, what I am saying is that "theft" is not the right word. Theft entails depriving the rightful owner of the property. Stealing is unlawful taking of property, with no provisions for depriving the actual property.

The difference (from the dictionary) between theft and stealing is that theft deprives the owner of the property. Stealing doesn't.

Re:Culture maven

[ScuzzMonkey]

That's fine rhetoric; unfortunately it is inconsistent.

If you want to talk about unlawful taking as being the definition of stealing, you need to also accept that those legal definitions of stealing in no way apply to intellectual property. Legally, you cannot "take" intellectual property; you can merely infringe on someone's intellectual property rights. It's a completely separate body of law with very different sources and definitions, and that's one reason it gets up everyone's nose here when people refer to it as 'stealing'. Until everyone understands the differences--and they are profound--it's impossible to have a reasonable conversation about why it is wrong and what should be done about it.

If you want to forget about legal definitions and stick strictly with moralistic ones, that's fine too, but you still then have the problem that deprivation is really the moral basis against stealing.

You need to reconcile your approach to one of those two points of view, IMHO, or there is not much basis for the argument.

Re:Culture maven

[iantri]

What the hell are you talking about? If you steal my car does that not deprive me the use of it? It is the same thing.

Re:Culture maven

[AntiOrganic]

My grassroots campaign to try to get people to acknowledge they are, in fact, stealing when they download music without license to that media. Join my campaign :)

It's not that I don't know, Bob. It's just that I don't care.

Re:Culture maven

[ChaosDiscord]

My grassroots campaign to try to get people to acknowledge they are, in fact, stealing when they download music without license to that media. Join my campaign :)

My grassroots campaign is to eradicate confusion between copyright and licenses.

Sure, you can license material protected by copyright. If you're a radio station you're getting a license (typically an automatic license) to broadcast the music. If you're a publisher printing and selling CDs for a musician who hasn't sold out their copyright, you're getting a license.

However, if you're just some dude who wandered into a store and purchased a CD, you neither receive nor need a license. When you purchase that CD you are paying for that particular CD. Nothing more, nothing less. As owner of that particular CD, you can play it, reverse engineer it, sit on it, loan it out, sell it, and do lots of random stuff to it. Pretty much anything you could do with, say, a chair. (Of course, it's harder to fit the chair into your CD player.)

The only noteworthy restriction on what you can do with the CD (at least here in the United States) is to distribute copies. That right, that copyright, is granted exclusively to the creator (who can transfer that right to others). This has nothing to do with licenses any more than I need a license to use my kitchen knife (even though I can use my kitchen knife to commit crimes).

As to "stealing", there is support for using that term. But is the idea of reimbursing creators so complex, so confusing that you need to fall back on a less accurate word? "copyright infringement" is far more accurate. Why not spend your time convincing people that copyright exists for important, ethical reasons, and that infringing copyright is morally wrong?

Re:Culture maven

[Xerithane]

As to "stealing", there is support for using that term. But is the idea of reimbursing creators so complex, so confusing that you need to fall back on a less accurate word? "copyright infringement" is far more accurate. Why not spend your time convincing people that copyright exists for important, ethical reasons, and that infringing copyright is morally wrong?

Because people are stupid, and people like to use inaccurate and non-existent words all the time. Like "irregardless." I'm trying to educate people to use the more accurate of a choice of two inaccurate words.

To me, it's really just a big joke though.

Re:Culture maven

[ChaosDiscord]

Because people are stupid, and people like to use inaccurate and non-existent words all the time. Like "irregardless." I'm trying to educate people to use the more accurate of a choice of two inaccurate words.

A fair point.

Your use is reasonable. I'm just so full of bitterness toward the extremely wrong comparisions to "shoplifting CDs from a store," that I occasionally need to bitch about it. "The Copyright Industries" (handwave) have been working hard to control the debate by controlling the language. It's nearly impossible to rationally discuss the pros and cons of various laws when your opponent takes the language you need away. Every discussion becomes a "you're with us or against us" arguement. The slightest suggestion that perhaps copyright needs to be reevaluated is twisted into "You just want to break into record stores, beat the owner with a lead pipe, steal CDs, and maybe kick their puppy on the way out." Gaaaaaaaaaah.

Re:Culture maven

[snol]

Okay, sorry for being short and smug in my reply, but really I don't think the two words mean different things at all. If m-w suggests some difference in nuance between theft and stealing, it doesn't represent common usage at all and is a much more well-hidden suggestion than all the suggestions that they're the same.

Re:Culture maven

[Xerithane]

If m-w suggests some difference in nuance between theft and stealing, it doesn't represent common usage at all and is a much more well-hidden suggestion than all the suggestions that they're the same.

My whole stance on it is that the usage of either term is incorrect and inaccurate. So if you are going to use either term, use the one that is more accurate.

It's just a facetious joke :)

Re:Culture maven

[Dachannien]

Actually, there *are* differences in penalty depending on the volume of infringement.

Re:Culture maven

[mark_lybarger]

differences in penalty, sure, but not implicit pardons. stealing a candy bar is still stealing, tho not punishable as bank robery in these fine states.

diaper/wolves

[Anonymous Coward]

""If you weren't spending your spare time in the years 99-00 downloading MP3s like a champ, it's likely you were still in diapers or dancing with wolves. ""

Or maybe I was a practising technology lawyer lawfully earning six figures between salary and bonuses by serving techies who were grown-ups and maybe I was actually buying whatever the hell interested me, including music and movies.

What's the appeal

[the_rev_matt]

I never understood the appeal of Napster. I tried to use it a few times, but the signal to noise ratio was so pathetic it wasn't worth the effort. Nice try, interesting concept, largely unusable in my experience.

Re:What's the appeal

[Jucius Maximus]

"I never understood the appeal of Napster. I tried to use it a few times, but the signal to noise ratio was so pathetic it wasn't worth the effort. Nice try, interesting concept, largely unusable in my experience."

This is why I love bittorrent. It's not one large searchable network but the signal to noise ratio is extremely good. I have never gotten anything that was mislabelled and the actual quality of what you download is really high. And if you go to one of the 'torrent sites' you can search a large number of back-archives of old torrents, effectively creating a lot of searchable mini-torrent networks. Different sites specialise in different thigns: Apps, Movies, Music, Anime, Pr0n, etc. And no, I will not overload my favourite sites by providing links here. Go an google for them.

The other great thing about bittorrent is that there is a lot more 'sharing ethics' in the community. People seed files using their own bandwidth just for the heck of it, they don't just download and disconnect. One 2 GB Anime chunk I finished downloading 10 hours ago is still seeding on my machine because I want to help other people get it. I would have have shared something like that on Napster or Kazaa.

Re:What's the appeal

[tetra103]

I never understood the appeal of Napster. I tried to use it a few times, but the signal to noise ratio was so pathetic it wasn't worth the effort. Nice try, interesting concept, largely unusable in my experience.

Wouldn't be great if the music industry had the same point of view. In a way, I sorta agree with the guy. The file share concept is great, but in practice, most of the music is poorly ripped and the latency is sad. In generaly, I'd hardly believe that file sharing actually hurt the sales of music CDs other than a percentage point or two. But....the economy is slowing down...must get greedy and sue someone right?

Personally, I use to download a song or two, then search on the artist. If I downloaded four or more songs I actually liked, I went out and bought the CD. Many times, I'd get multiple CDs for that artist. Now, with the music industry being so greedy, I just stopped altogether. I now just hit my local library and sign out the CDs then rip them myself. We all rebel in our own ways I guess.

Diapers?

[KillerHamster]

If you weren't spending your spare time in the years 99-00 downloading MP3s like a champ, it's likely you were still in diapers or dancing with wolves.

Or maybe you hadn't yet convinced your old-fashioned parents to buy a computer...

Re:Diapers?

[Telastyn]

Or maybe you were bright enough to get all the mp3s you ever wanted back in '96...

wolves?

[sporty]

If you weren't spending your spare time in the years 99-00 downloading MP3s like a champ, it's likely you were still in diapers or dancing with wolves. Oh, Napster, we loved ye when.

Or using ftp, irc or usenet. Or not using them at all.

I prefer whole albums myself. Napster never made that easy.

Re:wolves?

[retto]

What abuot Scour? Or just burning the CD?

In 99-00 I was in college and Napster was blocked there, but Scour and iMesh weren't. I never did try Napster.

Of course, just coping the CD from someone will a helluva lot easier.

Re:wolves?

[stratjakt]

I thought the argument was that albums only have one good song on them, so they arent worth having, and thus the need for r337 0-d4y mp3z0rz.

Re:wolves?

[f0rt0r]

Tell me about it, I found IRC mp3 channels to be better than napters, especially the ones that had entire albums. It's funny, how this system can help artists. Last year I downloaded an mp3 and discovered a German artist named "Blumchen" who I later searched the web for and found ( and purchased ) several cd's from that artist. Now I listening to nothing but European music that I would not even hear about if I only frequented the local stores or listened to the local radio stations here in the U.S.

Any, that turned into a bit of a rant, but the point is that Napster was most likely, with few exceptions ) the home of Britney Spears and Backstreet Boys fans.

For those who are interested in European music, I found www.eil.com as a fairly good source so far, and I am trying to locate a another online vendor or European music ( in the original language, of course ).

Ahh the good old days...

[mtrupe]

Its such a shame how we cannot get free music anymore now that Napster is dead. Err, uh. Nevermind.

not me

[Jucius Maximus]

"No self-respecting culture maven can deny their love affair with Napster. If you weren't spending your spare time in the years 99-00 downloading MP3s like a champ, it's likely you were still in diapers or dancing with wolves."

Or on dialup. 28.8 dialup. On a 5 machine home LAN.

It is painful living in a rural area, there's still no broadband.

Napster will be remembered as brilliant

[192939495969798999]

I can't think of a better way to find out about a new band than on Napster (the way it was). I heard about numerous bands that I would have had no exposure to otherwise. While I think it is wrong to steal people's work, I think it is really important for music to circulate to its audience -- If Napster could sell ads, why couldn't they just use that to pay royalties? Besides, for the 999th time, no one is paying 18 bucks for a CD with one good song on it.

Re:Napster will be remembered as brilliant

[jjhall]

You hit the nail on the head. I don't know how many CDs I purchased because I was trying to find a song I heard somewhere, and downloaded others not sure if they were it or not. Many times I downloaded something more obscure that I liked better than the original. Download a couple more to see if it was just a fluke, and off to my favorite online CD retailer and on the way it was.

Jeremy

Re:Napster will be remembered as brilliant

[thryllkill]

"Besides, for the 999th time, no one is paying 18 bucks for a CD with one good song on it."

And yet the music industry thrives on this very concept...

Shawn's computer pals

[GuyMannDude]

After his uncle John gives Shawn his first computer, the aw-shucks kid from Massachusetts comes across a brilliant idea, peer-to-peer file sharing, which he develops with the help of friends in several online communities. The story is touching, and it's fascinating to take a behind-the-scenes look at how the program originated, first through Shawn and then as the product of a tight-knit online community.

Did the members of this "tight-knit online community" become employees of Napster Inc. or did Shawn just ditch them once he realized just how big a thing p2p could be? I'm not trolling, I'm asking. I don't recall Shawn giving a lot of public thanks to his computer buddies during Napster's hayday.

GMD

Re:Shawn's computer pals

[dr ttol]

Yeah. One of them is Jordan Ritter who is also a co-founder. He actually did all the backend server stuff. He's now over at Cloudmark doing the SpamNet thing, which is pretty big. And yes, I did some stuff for Napster. Jordan rules by the way.

Re:Shawn's computer pals

[mjmalone]

Hello ttol, its loafy... remember me? ;) Weird seeing you here... how're things?--e-mail me sometime, mmalone at vt dot edu

jordan rocks. go ngrep.

Re:Shawn's computer pals

[limefest]

ttol you're an idiot. you ain't done shit.

Napster changed my life

[Jad LaFields]

I essentially didn't listen to music before napster. The occaisional random CD, but I (for some reason) never listened to the radio, never watched MTV, etc., and was pretty much entirely out of the loop regarding popular music. Actually even unpopular music.

Now I have a 20gig mp3 that I quite literally carry around with me *everywhere* and I have a much more diverse music tastes (can listen to rap-rock, baroque, ska, and big-beat sequentially without batting an eye) than I could ever have gotten through normal music-discovering means (radio, MTV).

Thank you Napster.

Re:Napster changed my life

[Fletch]

...I have a 20gig mp3...

Jesus, man, that's one hell of a long song. How big was the WAV before that thing was encoded?

Re:All the Wha??

[easter1916]

Maybe rave as in rave music? I didn't get that either.

Migration to Kazaa

[dicepackage]

I like how things have turned out. Kazaa is just as good as Napster was at getting music but you can do so much more. When you throw in video to the mix I would prefer Kazaa over Napster anyday.

Bring on the MPAA / RIAA discussions..

[saintjab]

And the book isn't even about that. It's more of a post-mortem business analysis; and could/would prove very handy to someone looking to get into internet ventures. This is a great idea becaues it may help to broaden the pulic's (Joe Sixpack's) understanding of what is going on with all this online P2P contreversy stuff. It could prove very beneficial to the cause of P2P supporters; while maybe shedding some light on just how corrupt the music industries tactics can be. I think this is great idea for a book and there should be more like them.

Probably redundant...

[Flabby Boohoo]

But I avoided Napster like the plague. I stuck to my guns and continued to use IRC.

A buddy of mine told me about it back then, "Hey you gotta check this out! All the songs you could ever want!"

I found out that he registered the software and created the account using his real name. Makes it easy for the RIAA and the FBI... I wonder how many other knuckleheads have done that?

MTV has RAPED our musical heritage.

[truthhurts1]

What a big lie calling themselves music television when they only target their music to 13 year old teen girls. That demographic pays their bills. Just don't call it MTV. Call Clearasel-TV.

Do they ever play classic videos or legendary music ? No . BACKstreet,Nsync, Gaysync.....whatever. Bullshit , if you ask me.

Re:MTV has RAPED our musical heritage.

[enomar]

Wow. Bitter much? It's a tv channel, and a lot of people like it. Just because it doesn't cater to your every need doesn't mean they've done anything to hurt our 'musical heritage'. Get a life, and stop complaining about all the other idiots out there.

WinMX anyone?

[MoxFulder]

I use WinMX now [http://www.winmx.com]. It's so Napster-like, it's almost funny. The selection seems to be quite good and it has some nice feautres like multi-point downloads. But mostly, it's just like Napster. Woohoo.

Re:WinMX anyone?

[Rethcir]

YES! WinMX is far and away the best gnutella client I have used. It's entirely free, no ad or spy crap at all. It's a little flaky sometimes but it's easy to jump on and find songs with. Anyone who uses any form of kazaa is a moron! MORON i say!

Re:Napster? Feh.

[tuffy]

I consider the copying of music and other digital media to which I do not own the copyright or to which I have not been given the express permission by the owner of said copyright to be theft.

I consider wandering off with a CD I haven't paid for to be theft. I consider downloading songs I haven't paid for and don't have permission to download copyright infringement, because that's what it is. I don't consider either to be acceptable, but neither to I consider both of them to be identical.

All the rave...

[ihatesco]

are belong to us.

I really hate it when ...

[Chromodromic]

... people refer to events that happened two years ago as something akin to "back in the days of yore" or as in this case "when loved ye when". Jesus. It was two fuckin' years ago.

Otherwise Napster Shnapster. Somehow, all the people I know are *still* getting buttloads of free music, and, somehow, I think they will continue to ...

Spare time waste

[ehiris]

If you weren't spending your spare time in the years 99-00 downloading MP3s like a champ, it's likely you were still in diapers or dancing with wolves.

If you were spending your spare time downloading MP3s from Napster you were in total need of a situation which we humans refer to as a live.

Re:Napster? Feh.

[JUSTONEMORELATTE]

I consider the copying of music and other digital media to which I do not own the copyright or to which I have not been given the express permission by the owner of said copyright to be theft.

Just waiting for this to get modded -1:Troll, while this

and even if you are tired of hearing it, it doesn't make it any less true:
ALL COPYRIGHT = GREED
and copying music is NOT stealing in any sense of the word "stealing"
PERIOD

gets modded +1:Insightful

--

Nerds will be nerds

[Koyaanisqatsi]

it's interesting to see how Shawn stops pursuing a sports scholarship for college and instead focuses on computer programming.

Sounds familiar?

fschk Napster...

[jstn]

Real h4x0rs user IRC to get their MP3s... because IRC ain't goin no where! Eh? - j

Re:Napster

[Anonymous Coward]

Um, Napster was good for getting that 'one song' you heard on the radio - basically, a sample of a band that you heard of or about. I dont think many people used it to download ALBUMS. And "the legends were getting shit off IRC"? Wtf is a legend? Sorry guy, irc is farther down on the pirate food chain then you probably realize. Any monkey can sit in some fucking efnet room, waiting for a XDCC xfer. A "legend" as you put it would getting things off 0day's and using credits, not idling in chatrooms or bittorrent (lol, bittorrent).

HAHA!

[RatBastard]

Sweet Jesus! Let me catch my breath! HAHHAHAH! Oh, crap! I can't stop laughing! HAHAHAHA!

And we all know that the wholesale copying of material you do not have a legal right to, and for which you have not paid for is, at best, rampaging selfishness.

You have the gall to call their actions "greed" when you are committing the exact same sin (for lack of a better word).

Whatever, Beavis.

Re:you know it's true

[egomaniac]

and copying music is NOT stealing in any sense of the word "stealing"

Excerpt from Merriam Webster:

steal, v:

1 : to take the property of another wrongfully and especially as an habitual or regular practice

...

1 a : to take or appropriate without right or leave and with intent to keep or make use of wrongfully

Sounds like stealing to me. Of course, next you're going to argue that the first definition doesn't apply, because music isn't "property". Thankfully, I've got that covered too.

property, n:

2 c : something to which a person or business has a legal title

Next, you're going to argue that it still doesn't count, because you didn't "take" it, you just "made a copy of it", to which I answer: shut up. You didn't make the music, and you don't have a natural right to listen to it. I don't see what is so wrong about others expecting to be paid for their efforts, despite the fact that the product of those efforts is intangible. If you don't want to pay for it, feel free to not listen to it.

Napster is long dead, Opennap lives on.

[Wally_bear]

Sure, it's not as big as Napster in its heyday, or even Music City (running Opennap) before the traitors went to other things, but Opennap is still alive and kicking, I exclusively do my downloading from Opennap and Slavanap (ugh) servers.

As someone already mentioned (fairly cluelessly however) that WinMX is "napster like", it's connecting to Opennap servers and they likely don't even realize it.

Lopster and Lopster for windows are two clients I suggest, given your preferred OS (not sure what to suggest for Mac honestly..)

Sure, irc trading has gone on for years, BitTorrent recently, but at least on Opennap you can also chat and have some sort of knit community outside of a Forum.

Well...

[Pinguu]

I think I'll just download it on KaZaA ;)

You strike me as....

[Anonymous Coward]

one of those people who just make this statement to appear "uber". Was the signal-to-noise ratio really that bad? Only on really bad and/or low encodings have I ever been able to hear the differnce. Then the is there fact that I am willing to accept some quality loss when listening on my computer. I know I can get better (maybe even cheap) speakers, but I don't really want to. When I want to hear a good recording of Muddy Watters I break out the wax. I feel the urge to go on some more and some more facts and figures and details, then I realized I fell for you troll and am so ashamed that I will post this in a cowardly fashion.

Regretfully Yours,

AC

Re:You strike me as....

[John3]

Signal-to-noise probably referred to the lack of correct labelling and the unreliable content within the MP3 files. The technical "signal to noise" might have been fine, but files were mislabelled, cut-off 2/3 of the way through, full of pops and clicks, and other noises. Was it "The Beatles" or "The Beetles", "John Lennon" or "John Lenon" (or "John Lenin")? Add that to the frequent disconnects from users and what you get is a dirty "pool" of music rather than a pristine sample of MP3 files. Of course, what do you expect for free?

John

Re:you know it's true

[mopslik]

and even if you are tired of hearing it, it doesn't make it any less true: ALL COPYRIGHT = GREED Copyright has a role in protecting Joe Average as well, not just big corporations. If I invested years of reasearch into developing a specific piece of software, only to have someone monopolistic company copy that code line-for-line and release it under a new moniker, I'd be pretty pissed off that they were taking away my revenue that easily. In this case, there would at least be a need for said company to invest some of their own time and money into developing a functional duplicate.

Re:Napster

[ncc74656]

The legends were getting shit off IRC, and later on bittorrent, and/or trading privately amongst themselves.

You forgot Usenet...alt.binaries.sounds.mp3* 0wnz j00.

Actually, I never liked Napster.

[mcc]

Except for a very very small block of time RIGHT before they shut down (during which time they were quite enjoyable to use and featured a wide variety of music) Napster always struck me as having shitty, uber-mainstream selection, annoying users, download speeds that seemed to almost always drop to 0.2k/s or just drop altogether once the file was half-downloaded, a total of zero users who were correctly reporting their (modem or cable?) download type, and an absolutely horrid (at least at first) macintosh implementation. Moreover, finding a full album on napster was absolutely impossible, badly encoded mp3s were everywhere, and WELL, WELL over half of all mp3s available on napster were incompletes-- but NONE were labelled as such.

I hated napster.

I spent the entire Napster period downloading mp3s, just as i had for a very very long time before Napster was ever invented-- from search.oth.net and other FTP-search based sources. Yeah, Ratio was a bitch, but at least you KNEW the server was going to stay up for a few hours at least, and you knew nobody was going to put an mp3 in their main collection if it was an incomplete.

Also, there was this convenient thing in that basically, the majority of ftp servers had a 1:5 U/D ratio set; the vast majority of ftp servers had exactly one file that i wanted to download of about 6 or 7 megabytes; and i had an mp3 of cookie monster singing "C is for Cookie, that's good enough for me" that was 1.5 megabytes. So i could zap up cookie monster, grab what i wanted, and get out quick. What was wierd, though, was that i think i started something; once i started doing this, the cookie monster mp3 started spreading quite a bit. I would sign onto mp3 servers i'd never been on before and find my cookie monster mp3 already there-- and not in the upload folder either, in the actual sorted mp3 collection. Hmmmm.. ^_^

Uh, and since i see to be admitting to illegal acts above: i downloaded mp3s solely to sample music which i was considering buying or which was not available in america, i was too young to be legally tried as an adult when the events described above happened, i never downloaded mp3s, this post is fiction posted for humorous purposes, i don't even know what an "mp3" is, and i don't own or know how to use a computer.

Oh, and slashdot claims that this is my 700th post posted with my account, though i notice a lot of my earlier ones aren't in the archive.

Re:Actually, I never liked Napster.

[Dynedain]

C is for Cookie became quite popular on my campus network back in '97....it was in rotation on my playlist!

Re:Actually, I never liked Napster.

[gid]

I loved ratio ftps, most of them were on cable modems anyway, which means slow download and FAST upload, and me being on a t3, would be mean. I'd up my little song, get what I wanted, then queue up my entire collection for upload and go to sleep, meanwhile filling up the dude's hard drive. He wanted mp3s? Oh I'd give him mp3s....

Foreshadowing?

[Ominous Armed Cow]

Foreshadowing comes before, not during or after.

The tech market began it's implosion in April of 2000, about the same time that Judge Jackson laid the smackdown on MS. The twits on wall street fled in terror at the thought of chopping up MS, even though they should have been running for entirely different reasons. (i.e., a ridiculous amount of investment in crappy business 'ideas'.)

It's a Davey and Goliath tale for the 21st century

[haa...jesus christ]

Uh, you should probably say 'David and Goliath'. 'Davey and Goliath' connotes Napster users as button-down Christians and the music industry as a big dumb dog.

Okay, it's half right.

I never liked Napster

[fudgefactor7]

No self-respecting culture maven can deny their love affair with Napster. If you weren't spending your spare time in the years 99-00 downloading MP3s like a champ, it's likely you were still in diapers or dancing with wolves. Oh, Napster, we loved ye when.

I saw Napster (and the rest of them) as being for lamers. The fun was the hunt of the file...like a big game hunter in Africa. It was all about anonymous FTP for me. And when Napster was shut down, there were people moaning about not getting their MP3 fixes...whereas I still hunted the anony FTP sitez and found my prey (usually.) As P2P becomes more of a target and RIAA keeps shutting them down (perhaps bittorrent will be next?) the FTP keeps on a chuggin'. Kinda hard to shut down that which isn't as public as the P2P stuff. And IP addresses can change oh so easily.

Re:I never liked Napster

[iantri]

FTP sites are fine if the music you want is some crap mainstream pop, rap, hip-hop or whatever it is that is popular now. If you want anything obscure, the lack of any centralized search makes it nearly impossible to get what you want.

Re:I never liked Napster

[fudgefactor7]

That's what makes the hunt fun... No lame search engine, just go see, if it's there then you win; if not move on to the next sporting hole. For a while I had a shitload of really wacky stuff that many would never even find on KaZaA now...

Re:you know it's true

[Soko]

and even if you are tired of hearing it, it doesn't make it any less true:

ALL COPYRIGHT = GREED

Really? So the GPL == GREED too? After all. the power of the GPL comes from Copyright Law, even though it's used to grant freedoms instead of restrict them.

and copying music is NOT stealing in any sense of the word "stealing"

PERIOD


Here nor there - it's still not legal. You're either on a crusade to "stick it to da man" or you yourself are GREEDY.

Kids. Sheesh.

Soko

puh-lease

[j4ck50n]

"If you weren't spending your spare time in the years 99-00 downloading MP3s like a champ, it's likely you were still in diapers or dancing with wolves. Oh, Napster, we loved ye when."

No self respecting geek would use Napster EVER, no one I know ever touched it, and we all downloaded MP3's *like a champ*.

It's called usenet...premium servers please. All of us *in the know* knew that once Napster went under, and it most definitely would, that all the kids hyped up on *free* would be flocking to usenet, flooding the groups with crap posts, begging for instructions and calling everyone *fag*. Sure enough, they did.

Napster single handedly brought piracy to the masses, made it a household word and brought the ire of RIAA etc. upon us all.

I cant believe that this story was intro'd like this. Napster is, was and always will be a blight and a bad bad period in mine and others opinions.

"...in diapers..." man, gimma a freekin break.

Re:puh-lease

[(trb001)]

Okay, you're not directly contradicting yourself, but read the following two sections of your rant.

1. No self respecting geek would use Napster EVER, no one I know ever touched it, and we all downloaded MP3's *like a champ*.

2. Napster single handedly brought piracy to the masses

Apparently, you don't know anyone in the 'masses'. I happen to be a self-respecting geek and I *did* use Napster, in college, when it first came out. I still use Kazaa and Limewire, depending on what I'm looking for.

I cant believe that this story was intro'd like this. Napster is, was and always will be a blight and a bad bad period in mine and others opinions.

Okay, the same thing you criticize him for you then do *yourself* later in the same sentence. Don't make sweeping generalizations, especially since we've seen plenty posts on Slashdot (good representation of the geek community) stating the opposite.

--trb

Re:puh-lease

[j4ck50n]

I'm sorry, I just don't understand your point? Contradiction? Huh?

Especially the last part, what am I doing that I criticized him for?

And, I don't need to know anyone in the masses (although I do), the abundance of dipshits on usenet following napsters demise and the fact that a year(s) long media circus followed is proof enough.

Re:puh-lease

[kryptkpr]

The variety of content that Napster (and AudioGalaxy following it) once had was unbeatable. I was able once to find very rare electronic tracks that I haven't seen anywhere since (I lost a few CDs) easily..

Newsgroups are nice and all, but what's there is what someone else decides needs to be put there.. and you have to pay for decent access without missing parts all the time.

Humbug

[Jahf]

If you weren't spending your spare time in the years 99-00 downloading MP3s like a champ, it's likely you were still in diapers or dancing with wolves.

Or maybe you were just a conscientious person who instead of ripping off your favorite artists (yes, they do get SOME of that money, just not much) were buying their discs and ripping them from legitimately purchased media and thereby also helping make sure that the labels saw how much they were selling.

Now porn on the other hand ...

Re:Humbug

[jCaT]

Or maybe you were just a conscientious person who instead of ripping off your favorite artists (yes, they do get SOME of that money, just not much) were buying their discs and ripping them from legitimately purchased media and thereby also helping make sure that the labels saw how much they were selling.

Now porn on the other hand ...

How the hell is that any different? I work for an adult company, and I'd say about 25% of my job is keeping people from stealing our content. There's a daily barrage of people trading our content in newsgroups, yahoo groups, message boards... you name it.

What you just said feeds off the stigma that adult content is somehow illicit, which it is not. As creators of content we have exactly the same rights as your "favorite artists" to protect their content.

Re:Humbug

[Jahf]

It was sarcasm and a bad pun. I left out the smiley so that it wasn't TOO obvious.

Re:Humbug

[jCaT]

Yeah, and anybody can make music too!

Re:you know it's true

[operagost]

Said just like someone who has never created ANYTHING of his own. Imagine if you did- would it be fair that the day after you introduced your art/invention to the world, a hundred others copied it and you never profitted? That you enriched the world for free is small consolation while you lie penniless in the gutter.

Copyrights and patents are not inherently evil, but like many things they can be abused and used for ill purposes. For example- by extending them in perpetuity.

Looking back...

[Otter]

And maybe there was. In the end, Menn shows how Napster was, like other dot-coms, little more than a publicly supported pyramid scheme, built on the long-true presumption that an even dumber investor was just down the road.

A few months ago, there was an interview with Shawn Fanning linked here, where he was asked to marvel at how he's not a billionaire. I was marveling that there was a time when it seemed perfectly reasonable that a company with no source of revenue and whose only activity was facilitating massive violation of the copyrights of enormous companies should, of course, be making a fortune for its founders.

Although the same interview had Fanning talking about growing up on Cape Cod in Hull, MA -- apparently unaware that his home town is nowhere near Cape Cod.

Menn also exposes...rockstress Courtney Love's flirtations with Shawn, whom she once introduced at an award show as her future husband.

This might make sense, if you're one of the people always mentioning Courtney Love as a supporter of Napster, except that Love's plagiarized essay actually denounced Napster and supported Lars Ulrich. I suppose that's her being her.

Re:Looking back...

[stratjakt]

I wish Courtney would take the shotgun to Fannings head too.

A lot of folks are missing the point completely -

[oldwarrior]

It's the income that is theft/stolen (revenue) not the music/cds/files.

It's not the same as walking out with stolen cds but it is the same as ruining some farmers crops or giving them away when the family isn't home. The hard work pays off with return that feeds the kids and that's what you steal when you napster/gnutella/morpheus/kazaa music. QED.

Re:Booooring. Read why...

[Creepy Crawler]

What? Am I not telling the truth? Oh, I forgot. It's not the "WarezDoods turned Open Sourcer" rose tinted glasses.

Reality is sometimes that harsh.

Napster was just yet another DUMB .Bomb that died by judgement, when it was due to die by litigation AND lack of MAKING MONEY.

Bittorent is making a step in the right direction, but it's directory servcies can be shut down and all the torrents would be nullified.

The next step for Bittorrent is to make it into a swarm protocol so that everybody is a bit-torrent server and client. And that'll take time to understand the python (and math) to engineer something like that. Then you could add in IP spoofing natively on *nix platforms.

Face it. Napster itself was doomed at startup, and anybody that says differently is lying through their teeth.

Re:A lot of folks are missing the point completely

[Mr_Silver]

It's the income that is theft/stolen (revenue) not the music/cds/files.

Actually, it's the potential income that is stolen.

The problem is that it's very difficult to prove that had a user not been able to download the song, that they would have gone out and bought it.

WTF?

[Chasuk]

Methinks Mr. Livegoat needs to put away the thesaurus when he is writing a book review, at least until the words it recommends fit comfortably within his own vocabulary.

... dedicating much space to vilifying John Fanning, who seems to deserve every bit of consternation the reading public can muster.

The word you wanted was condemnation, Mr. Livegoat. Consternation is the rough equivalent of confusion, which doesn't fit the context of your sentence at all.

Techies of all stripes will be amused as Menn attempts to make computer programming jargon edible to the mainstream reader.

Edible? Try intelligible.

With a boatload of rock stars and other curious characters, you'd think the spectacle of it all would overshadow the book's business patois.

Patois, which means roughly the same thing as jargon or lingo, is nonsensical in this sentence. The spectacle of rock stars overshadows jargon? Really?

An informative review, if one can overlook these bloopers.

Re:WTF?

[Halloween Jack]

"Self-respecting culture mavens" can't be bothered with petty things like understanding the twenty-dollar words that they throw into reviews. See, "livegoat"'s email points back to gamegal.com, which is, like, this game review site, OK, but, see, it's, like, for gals! Or written by a gal. Or something. Let's look at their profiles page, shall we?

Atchly, looks like "Libe Goad" is a real person, according to their site, and helped make kozmo.com the success that it is today. And she has degrees in Journalism and English Literature, so she must be qualified to be an editor. So there.

Worst. Opening. Sentences. Ever.

[Halloween Jack]

No self-respecting culture maven can deny their love affair with Napster. If you weren't spending your spare time in the years 99-00 downloading MP3s like a champ, it's likely you were still in diapers or dancing with wolves. Oh, Napster, we loved ye when.

Does Slashdot have the equivalent of the Bulwer-Lytton Awards? Maybe we should.

Let's see... what was I doing at the cusp of the millenium? Oh, yeah, that's right... I was working, not figuring out ways to waste my employer's bandwidth downloading old Ace of Base singles. So much for my status as a "self-respecting culture maven" *snort*.

Davey, not David.

[AzrealAO]

Davey and Goliath, the stop-motion "cartoon" of the 1960's.

Though, I'm not really sure how Napster vs the RIAA is a Davey and Goliath story of the 21st Century.

http://www.daveyandgoliath.org/

Rating?

[dr_dank]

If you love to read abou the dot-com bust--over and over--this meticulously researched tome is for you. Keep a drink handy, however, it gets dry in parts

Where does that fit on the usual 1-10 scale?

I propose a memorial...

[Nemus]

It will be placed on the MIT campus, etched forever into a block of marble:

The Server of the Unknown File-Sharer

I'm thinking a sculpture of a nice server, with space for extra hard drives, and A cable modem or ISDN line beside it. Instead of an Eternal Torch, we can have orange LED modkit lights, and instead of a changing of the guard, we can have a rebooting of the system every 24 hours.

Napster's height coincided with my immersion into the internet, and I have fond memories of downloading 3.5 MB songs over my 56k modem(Running at 54000, booya) at an agonizingly slow 3 or 4 kb/s. And now, when I can download a movie in less time that a half an album used to take, I can only look ahead to a steady 1 gig connection, and a new 120 gig hard drive or two.

And thus the need for the memorial, to remind we pirates, we digital bucaneers, plundering the high seas of bandwidth on the good ship Broadband of our heritage. God rest ye Napster, and fare-thee-well.

Heavy sigh...

[mad.frog]

If you weren't spending your spare time in the years 99-00 downloading MP3s like a champ, it's likely you were still in diapers or dancing with wolves.

Or maybe we were interested in actually *buying* a legitimate product, rather than ripping it off?

Yeah, the RIAA seems to be run by morons who couldn't find their own ass with both hands and a contour map, but that's no excuse. Don't like the prices or business practices? Fine; don't do business with them.

Too Bad...

[gooddope]

With Napster out of the picture sites like Kazaa are the only place to file share, and they are shady shady shady. Napster was a terrific venue to listen to and download some music so that you don't end up with 500 cd's at one good song apiece. I have an extensive music collection which I have paid for at the record store, and more than half of it I would never have purchased without the help of file sharing. Thanks Napster. Blow me Kazaa and all of your porn sharing popup making virus laden cousins.

Re:you know it's true

[mst76]

1 a : to take or appropriate without right or leave and with intent to keep or make use of wrongfully

Sounds like stealing to me.

If the original track is still there after you're done, you copied it. If the original was removed, you took/stole it. What's so difficult about that?

Re:you know it's true

[st0rmshad0w]

"You didn't make the music, and you don't have a natural right to listen to it. I don't see what is so wrong about others expecting to be paid for their efforts, despite the fact that the product of those efforts is intangible."

Um, because its not a natural right?

"If you don't want to pay for it, feel free to not listen to it."

And if you don't want to get upset that others are listening to your works without paying you, feel free to keep them to yourself.

I face exactly _zero_ legal liability if I go into a furniture store and proceed to return to my home and build an identical copy of what I have just seen. So why is this any different from music? I'm not profitting from it (selling it) other than having the item without paying the original vendor(not artist/creator mind you). It still costs me in materials and time.

What if I listen to a concert from outside the venue? I've heard the performance, but I have not paid the admission. (not the best example but you get the idea) Why is music (as in CD's) still considered BOTH a product and a license? You can't have it both ways. Which is it? Maybe after someone decides to answer that they can turn their attention to why the middlemen are still necessary to the musicians.

Flogging the dead horse...

[Kjella]

More legal precedence than you can read in a lifetime agree that they are not identical, and that copyright violation is not a subset of stealing.

It's like arguing that pickpocketing and armed robbery is the same because the same money is stolen. Both are illegal, but under different laws. Likewise with stealing and copyright violations. The result is pretty much the same (someone has an illegally obtained CD), but the *process matters*.

I don't disagree with your moral argument. But your legal one seems to be of the kind "When all you have it a hammer, everything looks like a nail."

Kjella

Illegal versus unethical

[s20451]

I used Napster a handful of times too, but only when I was looking for a specific song off a hard-to-find album.

Although the law does not technically distinguish between the two cases, I would argue that my use of Napster was not unethical, because if everyone did it, it would not have a significantly negative impact on the production of music, and because the music industry has provided no legitimate alternative. Meanwhile, downloading thousands of songs to avoid paying for music at all is unethical, because the downloader benefits from musicians' work without giving them any possibility of compensation. If everyone did that, the availability of music would likely decrease as fewer people could afford to produce it, and everyone would suffer.

Your argument, that breaking a law is black-and-white regardless of intention or magnitude, is the sort of logic that puts petty thieves away for life under three-strikes laws. It also implies that legality is the same as morality, and sets up the government as the ultimate judge of correct social behaviour.

And I think those who download music should consider that because they can do something, it doesn't necessarily mean that they should.

Re:Illegal versus unethical

[e2d2]

What specific album/track could you not find a hard copy of? I find it hard to believe that a song existed on napster yet you could not obtain a physical copy.

And I think those who download music should consider that because they can do something, it doesn't necessarily mean that they should.

Oh you mean people like you?
I used Napster a handful of times too, but only when I was looking for a specific song off a hard-to-find album.

It's funny that you think they are different. Since you like hyperbole so much (is the sort of logic that puts petty thieves away for life under three-strikes laws) I would compare your actions to a thief that breaks in to get food. Breaking the law is breaking the law. Don't like the laws? Complain to your congressmen.

Re:Illegal versus unethical

[nanojath]

I think this raises some interesting points. Napster in and of itself was not the cultural icon the book reviewer claims. The majority of people using it either didn't know or didn't care about the legality of what they were doing. What Napster did do was force the system to take a hard look at distinctions that had previously been allowed to hang in limbo.

It's easy to discount your standard of legal versus ethical as a self-serving copout. Your basic argument is that intent and scale should be taken into account in judging the violation of copyright. Precedent shows us that the common sense and practice of the law used to agree. There is no legal difference between what most people did with Napster and what most people did with cassette tapes. Mix tapes that are not kept solely for personal use are, in fact, illegal. That is an unauthorized duplication of someone's copyrighted material and if you read the label you will find that duplication of any kind is prohibited by law (though the conventional judicial interpretation of fair use suggests it is okay to duplicate something you own license to for personal purposes).

The industry accepted that stopping home taping was impossible to stop and get congress to throw a tax on blank media to compensate for it.

And nary a word was heard from Bowser the Copyright-Respecting dog about how making mix tapes for your friends was a crime. Scale. Intent.

The problem is, the legislative answer to the brave new world of digital copies and the internet did nothing to address and somehow try to creatively manage these cussed issue of scale and intent. Instead they just slapped a wholly extraneous and useless layer of digital rights management restrictions on top of existing copyright laws.

My point being, nothing was accomplished by taking this hard-line attitude that a violation is a violation is a violation. People who didn't know or care about copyright infringement in the Napster era will not know or care about DMCA infringement today. And people like s20451 just have that much more justification to apply their own ethical standards to their behavior, as the law is incapable of presenting any rational lines between violation of the "mix tape" variety and full-scale, market-harming bootlegging.

Re:Illegal versus unethical

[iamacat]

Well, I am big fan of Beatles and would like to have every song they ever performed. Since Apple records is not kind of enough to release a complete collection or sell tracks on iTunes music store, I have to buy several CDs and then fill in the holes from Limewire. Or do you mean I should pay 45 bucks for a 3-CD collection that has one song I don't have yet. How about early or less popular tracks that only exist on LPs?

Re:Illegal versus unethical

[e2d2]

Or do you mean I should pay 45 bucks for a 3-CD collection that has one song I don't have yet. How about early or less popular tracks that only exist on LPs?

I don't think the RIAA would care to be honest. They want you to purchase the 3-CD set. They want you to purchase the LP. They don't want you to download the song from napster and the states consider it illegal.

But I can see your point. That is exactly why record companies need to come up with a way to download all of the individual songs you want and
recognize the medium as a viable form of distribution. I think people want to be honest given the chance and most will pay for their legit copy. We don't want to hurt the musician but we want our music now and in digital format. That's what napster provided (in some form) and I think they need to learn from that.

Re:Illegal versus unethical

[e2d2]

Oh no I got the point coward. I just don't think the RIAA or anyone else gives two shits what the reason is. Because you think you have ethics on your side doesn't mean jack diddly in the real world.

At least twice I've had online CD companies take my order, then cancel it 3 weeks later when they couldn't fullfil it (trying to order Velvet Acid Christ's "Fun With Razors" being one of those times -- it includes some stuff that's not on the generally available "Fun With Knives").

Oh so because you've had companies take your order then cancel it now justifies downloading the songs right? And you're somehow better than other users how? Is there some downloader board of ethics that can weigh this question? Or is it all in your mind? You are right and others are wrong? Right and wrong are all relative. In your mind you think it was ok. In my mind you are just like me, a thief. Spin it however you want if it helps you sleep at night.

Re:Illegal versus unethical

[commodoresloat]

If everyone did that, the availability of music would likely decrease as fewer people could afford to produce it, and everyone would suffer.

Bullshit. Everyone does that now, or at least very many people do, and there is just aas much crappy top 40 music available as ever before. It's only been the last century that people have made money from recorded music, and music has existed and thrived for millenia. I don't disagree with everything you're saying, but I don't think this logic holds up. Music will not suffer from mp3s, nor will musicians. They will change and adapt. The only ones who will suffer are industry executives whose idea of "suffering" is having to cut back on the Dom Perignon, hookers, and cocaine for a couple of weeks.

Re:Illegal versus unethical

[elflord]

Is there some downloader board of ethics that can weigh this question?

Try reading about Kant's categorical imperative. This is the principal he was appealing to earlier in the thread -- the question is, would you wish your own behaviour to be universalised ? Free riders do not adhere to this general principle, because they are essentially subsidised by others. He made an argument that even if everyone adopted his behaviour, the effect on the music industry would not be undesirable.

Right and wrong are all relative. In your mind you think it was ok. In my mind you are just like me, a thief.

You're entitled to put whatever you like in your mind, but unless you are able to present a coherent argument, you will not be taken very seriously.

Again, there are credible moral principles that he appeals to. So not only is he morally "better than you", he also appears to be considerably more intelligent.

Re:Illegal versus unethical

[e2d2]

Oh sorry. Next time I will try and appeal to your superior intellect and moral character.

So not only is he morally "better than you", he also appears to be considerably more intelligent.


Oh so you don't agree with my argument so you brow beat me with accusations of lower intellect? Exactly how did you determine my intellect? From my argument?

You sound like the typical college genius "Research Associate" sipping capaccinos, plucking the harp, while wild dreams of a possible euphoric future dance around in your mind. You suffer from the disease of genius.. you think everyone else is an idiot.

Don't lecture me about Kant's categorical imperative. The question is not whether _my_ actions could be universalized but whether one could universalize the original posters actions by downloading rare songs that he deemed "hard to find". Now imagine if everyone acted on this same belief, with the same maxim. Would everyone be morally justified? How do you think the artists would react? What about the record companies? Is not everyone included in Kant's categorical imperative? Would society be served? When you act for _yourself_ you are not serving society as Kant was trying to point out.

You're entitled to put whatever you like in your mind, but unless you are able to present a coherent argument, you will not be taken very seriously.

And unless you can support an argument without personal (although slighted) attacks on one's intelligence I advise you to stick to research on geometrically finite hyperbolic groups, hiding in your whole away from the harsh reality of life and the general public. Not everyone in this world is going to be wowed by your intelligence and not everyone you deem "stupid" will turn out so.

Re:Illegal versus unethical

[elflord]

[snip]

The question is not whether _my_ actions could be universalized but whether one could universalize the original posters actions by downloading rare songs that he deemed "hard to find".

Right, and the other poster pointed out that he believed that one could universalise his actions. You may disagree with this contention, but it is a reasonable argument.

Now imagine if everyone acted on this same belief, with the same maxim. Would everyone be morally justified? How do you think the artists would react? What about the record companies?

Realistically ? I think the record companies would be unhappy about it. The artists probably wouldn't care for the most part, because the big artists would be unaffected and the small fish would be happy to get the extra exposure. But that's not central to the applicability of Kant anyway -- it's enough that the original poster believes that his behaviour, universalised, would have acceptable consequences.

Is not everyone included in Kant's categorical imperative?

No. Kant's categorical imperative does not ask that everyone find satisfactory the outcome of your conduct being universalised. It is a test that you are internally consistent.

Would society be served?

The problem is this question -- who gets to decide whether or not society would be served ? The categorical imperative only requires that one believes that ones behaviour universalised would be good for society. So for example, the categorical imperative does not address issues like self-serving bigotry (because some people may benefit when bigotry is practised on a wide scale). Moving towards the point you seem to be trying to make, the categorical imperative does not say that it is wrong to behave in a way that makes musicians and record comapny execs unhappy.

When you act for _yourself_ you are not serving society as Kant was trying to point out.

Sometimes, acting for yourself does serve society, and sometimes it doesn't. Kant is suggesting that being internally consistent is a good way to begin (serving society)

[snip]

Napster--Quintessentially Dot-bomb?

[istartedi]

Pitchman: I have a 19-year old programmer who wants to promote a system that distributes other people's copyrighted works and will probably give rise to all kinds of troublesome legal issues, but he does it on the Internet so it's really cutting edge.

VC: Here's a truckload of money.

Re:Napster--Quintessentially Dot-bomb?

[iendedi]

VC: Here's a truckload of money.

This is funny. But it's funny because of how ludicrous it is. Anyone who has any experience with the venture community knows in their bones that if they are willing to sign a deal with you, you either have something so good that you don't need them OR (More likely), you are about to become someone's bitch.

Let me be more clear. If a VC gives you money, that VC expects to do one of (A) Grow you and sell you off (flip you) to someone that they already know will be interested, or (B) Use you to achieve some sinister goal for some rich patron, or (C) Use you in some diabolical scheme to get press or assist in some other manner to raise the value of one of their other investments, or (D) Use you as leverage to get what they want in another deal (e.g. corporate extortion)...

The reason the dotBomb thing happened had nothing to do with stupid VCs with lots of cash. It had everything to do with a house of cards created through investments that existed to create bargaining leverage. As the economy unwound, the delicate balance of artificial deal leverage in the tech economy becan to collapse, causing a chain reaction that brought the whole friggen house down...

You never used Napster

[lpret]

Obviously. Becuase if you used Napster and achieved the 100+ kbps downloads you know that Kazaa is only a shell of what Napster was. Of course Napster would have changed with the times or new software with the same model would have risen up, but the server model helped a lot in terms of download speeds.

Bread Copier

[utahjazz]

What if I invented an inexpensive device, that when pointed at a loaf of bread, created a duplicate of it. I could do this as much as I want, for negligable cost.

This device would obviously be a great boon to society, making food virtually free. Certainly this technology would have a big effect on society, and society would need to adjust. Farmers would be less useful, highly creative chefs would be more useful.

Sadly, that adjustment would probably be to pass laws against the use of the device, saying that it constitutes theft of bread. Even if you do it in the privacy of your home, to bread you bought legally, and you didn't sell the dupe bread to anyone.

Re:you know it's true

[westneat]

ah, shut up, that's why "To capture physically; seize" is equivelent to "An imitation or reproduction of an original; a duplicate." While I consider pirating music to be morally wrong, I don't think it is stealing, by the definition you provided. Of course the reasons I think pirating is wrong is because artists deserve to get money for making good music.

Exactly

[tidge]

I bought way more CD's when I was using Napster. It made it much easier to check out some new (or old) artist that you had maybe just heard in passing, or was recommended by a friend. Sure, there are still ways to check out music, but none of them are as easy as napster was.

Re:Exactly

[sirinek]

People bought more CDs when Napster was around because back in '99-'00, anyone who could spell MCSE could get a high paying IT job. :)

Re:Exactly

[micromoog]

Of course the IT industry alone supports the recording industry. Nobody else buys (or doesn't buy) CDs.

You're making the furniture,

[Population]

but you're not making the music.

No one would have a problem if you listened to a song and then sang it in the shower at home.

By your logic, there is nothing wrong if Microsoft takes bits of Linux code without following the GPL. After all, the Linux code is still there.

No, I think that people on /. would have a big problem with that. Even the people like you.

Re:You're making the furniture,

[st0rmshad0w]

but you're not making the music.

Nope. I am recreating a PHYSICAL item. In all but the rarest instances those who manufacture the objects recreated (CD's) didn't make the music either. That's why its called _COPY_right.

"No one would have a problem if you listened to a song and then sang it in the shower at home."

Wasn't there some sort of lawsuit about royalties for campfire songs sung by the Girlscouts or something like that? So I would have to beg to differ.

"By your logic, there is nothing wrong if Microsoft takes bits of Linux code without following the GPL. After all, the Linux code is still there."

No, because what you are talking about is violating a license. The music publishers still view CD's etc as _BOTH_ a product (which I should be able to recreate like a chair) and a license (in which case I've paid the license on the cassettes I own, so I should have the right to listen to the songs on CD if I choose)

They need to pick one. As soon as that happens, a lot of problems go away.

Re:You're making the furniture,

[SN74S181]

Why do they need to pick one or the other?

Clearly they sell a licensed product.

Whoops. Didn't mean to deflate your whole rant there...

Re:You're making the furniture,

[st0rmshad0w]

Ok, so that means I've paid my fee to listen to the music I bought, so will they replace my discs for cost of shipping and media, like Adobe will replace my copy of Photoshop if the CD gets wrecked? After all, I paid my license. I paid to make use of the data. For that matter I paid the "piracy tax" on the blank CD-R's (that oddly only gets divided among the big player, cuz no one would copy indy labels or anything) I bought to recreate the CD thats lost to damage, so how can they complain about it.

Re:You're making the furniture,

[SN74S181]

Replacement shipping/media cost is usually $10-15 dollars. Maybe you should just go buy another copy of the CD at the store.

Re:You're making the furniture,

[st0rmshad0w]

Heh, yeah for an item that costs less than $1 to press and shipping is about the same.

Re:you know it's true

[b-baggins]

Exactly. And you face zero legal liability if you listen to a music track and then go home and RECORD YOUR OWN track in your own studio.

But that's not what you did. You went to the furniture store, grabbed a copy of the design plans for the piece of furniture, scanned them into a computer, and distributed them to everyone in the world.

Flawed analogies are the cornerstone of human rationalization.

Apples and Oranges.

[mindstrm]

That's like saying "I like web sites, not file sharing"

What happens with regards to bittorrent is exactly what would happen if bandwidth were simply higher... people would post stuff to websites, and people would download it. The only difference with bittorrent is it helps lighten the load.

Re:Apples and Oranges.

[Jucius Maximus]

"What happens with regards to bittorrent is exactly what would happen if bandwidth were simply higher... people would post stuff to websites, and people would download it. The only difference with bittorrent is it helps lighten the load."

I'm not saying that bittorrent is the same as kazaa, so apples and oranges is right. For example, the best anime release sites have a real community where everyone helps by seeding. It's a give and take relationship and that's what makes it work. They give you what you want at very high quality, and you help distribute it to the world. It reminds me of communism, actually, and that's why it works.

And also, the last line of my previous comment should have read, "I would never have have reshared something like that on Napster or Kazaa."

or...

[john_smith_45678]

If you weren't spending your spare time in the years 99-00 downloading MP3s like a champ, it's likely you were still in diapers or dancing with wolves.

Or, found far far better uses of one's time. Has the definition of "culture maven" been updated to include "loner geek pirating mp3s in their parent's basement"?

Re:Napster

[Tranvisor]

Napster helped me find the IRC and the little communities inside, I'm sure it did that to others as well. It also felt cleaner and maybe looked nicer then Kazaa, etc (well maybe BT is better, but it lacks staying power, its only fault).

Clueless Windoz people were not the only people who used Napster.

No no no

[Srin Tuar]

Downloading an OCR'd copy over a p2p network is the proper way to pay homage :)

Re:you know it's true

[st0rmshad0w]

"And you face zero legal liability if you listen to a music track and then go home and RECORD YOUR OWN track in your own studio."

This is so fraught with potential liability that I can't even get into it. What I am saying is, if you hand me a shiny little disk with a certain pattern of pits on it which cause it to produce a certain "music" when placed in a CD player, then theoretically I can reproduce the object.

If music is a license and not a product then that is a different story entirely. Then the INFORMATION itself is in question. Just as the information contained in the design of a piece of furniture would be in question if you were to buy a license for that furniture.

It is not my fault that reploducing a copy became so easy. They must adapt. And they cannot continue to maintain that music is BOTH a product and a license.

The most important aspect..

[Gefiltefish11]

This story is really a landmark. Slashdot has posted a book review that is actually lukewarm!

Gone are the days when every book review was a total geekgasm. I'll remember those days fondly. (well, not really)

Gee, I can use online dictionaries too

[phorm]

take
1-5 deal with taking pills, or capture, hunting, etc.

6 : to transfer into one's own keeping:
a : APPROPRIATE
b : to obtain or secure for use (as by lease, subscription, or purchase)

So then we look at appropriate:

1 : to take exclusive possession of : ANNEX
2 : to set apart for or assign to a particular purpose or use
3 : to take or make use of without authority or right

In general, we can see that it is indicating a exclusive transfer of ownership and possession. That is, when you take something from another person, they no longer have the item.

Filesharing isn't taking, it's copying. Hence it is copyright infringement. Not that either is right, but one is not equal the other, and copying music is not the same as walking out of a music store with a CD hidden in your jacket, as there is no physical loss of properly.

How many times has this been mentioned on /.? Do we have to beat you over the head with it or what?

Re:It's a Davey and Goliath tale for the 21st cent

[Nick of NSTime]

"Stealing music is wrong, Daaaaaaaaavey."

Re:A lot of folks are missing the point completely

[ingenuus]

Actually, it might be more akin to buying the farmer's crops and planting the seeds to grow your own. And then giving away your crop. Is that immoral? What if the farmer doesn't want you to do that? Should that be illegal?

Guess I'm not self respecting...

[Godeke]

All my MP3's are rips from personally owned CDs, or a few I downloaded from MP3.com legally. Of course, I'm also working with an Internet company that didn't spend thousands on ergo office chairs, uses an XP style design and development process and actually has had a product for a couple of years that makes revenue.

Guess I'm square.

Re:you know it's true

[aliens]

I keep forgetting that artists don't create art because they are truely moved to do so. See I thought they did it because something in them made them want to enrich the world. Now it seems that they do it to to make themselves rich.

I'm not saying they should all be poor. But they can cry me a river as they live the life.

Forshadowing?

[jpsst34]

...to its slow unraveling in 2001, a foreshadowing event for the rest of the dot-com world.

Wait! You mean the rest of the dot-com world is going to unravel? I thought it was a secure place to be. I mean, it's now mid-2003 and Napster is still the only dot-com to bust, right?

foreshadowing?

[micromoog]

its slow unraveling in 2001, a foreshadowing event for the rest of the dot-com world.

Not sure which 2001 you lived through . . . the dot-com world's "unraveling" was well underway by then.

Bookmobile?

[SuperKendall]

Just had to bring that up, to add to your comparison.

Bah. Napster.

[venomkid]

All these file sharing services have done is prove that the public can't responsibly handle the ability to easily transfer digital media.

It's been said: With great power comes great responsibility. And it looks like that power might soon be taken away.

Thanks a lot napster.

(and no i never used it)

What? Who cares?

[CausticWindow]

Napster and it's ilk were never and are still not anything but mass distribution of culture of the lowest common denominator.

I seriously don't get why people are so thrilled to download Britney Spears, Puff Daddy or REM. Music you can get at your local supermarket for a fiver anyway.

If people were using it to get hold of that 100 copies Aphex record, the latest Tom Jenkinson smasher months before it's released, or even hard to get classical/contemporary music like Ligeti or Ruyichi Sakamoto, then I would understand it.

I used it constantly

[IWantMoreSpamPlease]

Loved it, I found all kinds of hard to get tunes. Mainly from european users, but the stuff I was looking for was from bands that no longer existed, record labels that were bankrupt and by and large I was replacing my rapidly wearing out tape collection...so again, who was I stealing from? No one as ar as I could tell...

Bite me, livegoats

[Silverhammer]

As someone who never touched Napster (or KaZaA or whatever) and considers so-called "filesharing" to be blatant theft of service, I reject your premise outright. Thank you, please drive through...

the book lies!

[Tumbleweed]

Anyone who's seen "The Italian Job" knows that Shawn Fanning didn't come up with Napster - Seth Green did. Fanning stole it from Green after he fell asleep, thus, 'Napster'.

You cannot defeat the real Napster! :)

ps The Italian Job is a fun movie. Go see it before it's gone! C is for Charlize (Theron), and that's good enough for me...

That's right, it's a license.

[Population]

As you noted, the music on the CD is covered by a license.

The same as the code on a Linux CD is covered by a license.

Stealing the music CD from a music store is the same as stealing the Linux CD from Frye's.

Copying the music from a music CD is the same as copying the code from a Linux CD.

If you don't want to follow the license, don't use the code.

Fanning didn't invent Napster

[kperrier]

Come on! We all know this! He stole it!

Sean Fanning?

[natrius]

I thought it was common knowledge that Sean Fanning stole Napster from his roommate while he was sleeping...

Scour Exchange

[Nomahhh]

Does anyone remember this program? It was P2P and came before Napster. Fanning just made a better version of it IIRC. Those of us at Northeaster were all about "sharing."

Actually

[commodoresloat]

Shawn's college roommate invented Napster; Shawn stole the disk while he was asleep. Officially Shawn said he didn't consider it stealing; he was just borrowing the disk to see if he liked it.

So, If I Don;t Like It, I Can Steal It?

[reallocate]

Oh, good. That means it is OK to steal anything I don't like, I don't much like Rembrandt. Guess I'll fly to Amsterdam and starting letting those nice Dutch museums "share" with me.

Stop whining about CD's with "filler". ("Yes, judge. I stole all that stuff, but because I think its filler, I'm innocent.") . Try better musicians; no one is forcing you to buy anything. Better yet, just wait to grow up and you'll have better things to do with your money than blowing it on music with a 5-minute lifespan,

Re:So, If I Don;t Like It, I Can Steal It?

[kubrick]

So reading a book without paying for it these days is theft? You shouldn't be looking at those Rembrandts without forkin' over da big bucks, then...

When did "I want" become "they need"?

[beer_maker]

Pardon the rephrase, but "... we want our music now and in digital format" and "That is exactly why record companies need top come up with a way" isn't much excuse for copyright infringement, much less the out-and-out stealing of music.

No other medium allows for exact digital copies, so true to the original that most users NEVER REPLACE THEM WITH ORIGINALS. Sure, everybody has stories about buying albums they would not have before hearing them as .mp3s, but the dirty little secret of the file-"sharers" is that damn near nobody buys most (much less all) of the albums they copy.

Music may be inexpensive to duplicate, and Napster & its ilk make it darn near free to do so, but it costs money to make. And sell. And ship. And store. And you buying two albums to get one album of songs you want is what pays for those things. There's an awful lot of crap music out there, and it costs just as much to make as the stuff you like, and until it's out there nobody knows if it's crap or gold. THAT is the basis for the music industry, the balancing of risk - charging enough for the bestsellers to pay the costs on the no-hit wonders. Of course the price for GREATEST_CD_EVER is too high, you are also supporting the work of GONNA_BE_A GOOD_BAND_SOMEDAY_MAYBE.

I don't think it's a very good system, I don't think it's a very efficient system, and I'd love to see another system replace it. But taking the money out of the system via Napster/Morpheus/Kazaa/whatever means there won't be any money to fix it, and telling the industry they're a bunch of fscking thieves isn't much incentive for them to help you out by creating a new system. You want things to change - what are you willing to do differently that DOESN'T take away their livelihood?

If your entire defense is gonna be "oh, I'm only breaking the law a little ..." maybe you might just want to keep it to yourself.

Re:When did "I want" become "they need"?

[Zog The Undeniable]

Since when has MP3 been an exact copy of a CD (ask any "audiophile")? Didn't CD sales rise strongly when Napster was at its peak? People do frequently buy the original media - unless they know the CD is copy-protected and won't play in their car, in which case they just grab the MP3 from Kazaa and make the best of a bad job. Poetic justice for the record company, really.

Re:When did "I want" become "they need"?

[e2d2]

My argument was never that I'm breaking the law a little. I blatantly called myself a thief! I don't need an excuse. Only losers with moral qualms need excuses.

Re:So, If I Don't Like It, I Can Steal It?

[reallocate]

We're not talking about reading, and you know it. We're talking about stealing by making and distributing illegal copies. Some folks go to absurd lengths to rationalize their own theft via filesharing, like arguing that the CD's they want have only 2 tracks worth listening to. How you can get from "I don't like 80 percent of this CD" to "That gives me the right to steal the other 20 percent" is beyond me. If that is true, then I have a right to walk out of those Amsterdam museums with Rembrandts under my arm simply because I don't like 80 percent of his work.

Re:So, If I Don't Like It, I Can Steal It?

[kubrick]

No no no. Following the original principle, that gives you the right to take highly detailed colour photographs that don't damage the original in any way.

Theft involves taking something the owner no longer has any possession of. Lost IP sales count merely as unrealised potential revenue -- if everyone who copies something would otherwise buy it, the amounts would be the same, but that's rarely the case and it still doesn't count as theft.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending IP infringement -- it's illegal, after all -- and some level of IP protection is a necessary part of our economy. I just think that in most cases it's an ambit claim by the "victims" (*AA, BSA, etc.) who probably write most of it off as a brand-building cost anyway.

Re:So, If I Don't Like It, I Can Steal It?

[reallocate]

In my book, "Lost IP sales" due to illegal copying counts as theft, even if it is potential earnings.

However, this is largely a semantic gambit. Copyright infringement is a crime, whatever we might call it otherwise. I've yet to see an argument justifying it as legitimate that doesn't sound like something dreamed up in a debate club of 12-year olds.

Re:So, If I Don't Like It, I Can Steal It?

[kubrick]

I think that the backlash against IP crime -- like the backlash against terrorism -- is going too far, too hard and too fast. Look at some of the decisions being handed down...

(Re terrorism: the government here in Australia wants laws passed to lock up anyone -- adults or children -- indefinitely, without charge, if they are suspected of possessing information about terrorism or terrorists.) This reminds me of .mp3 being declared an "illegal file format" -- although I need to check if any Congresspeople had drunk enough of the corporate Kool-Aid to be parroting that line.

Sure, the consequences of that are more serious, but in both cases the punishments are out of all proportion to the damage caused by the crime -- given that being "under suspicion" is soon to be considered a criminal act here.

Thankfully...

[jotaeleemeese]

... laws in most countries disagree with your view of filesharing as stealing. The crime is called copyright infirngement in case you want to know.

Life.

[jotaeleemeese]

Life.
Life.
Life.

Browsing other user's lists (or: what I miss most)

[zero_offset]

The feature I miss most from Napster is the ability to browse another user's list of files. My Napster usage pattern was typically -- go looking for a couple of tracks that were somehow similar, then browse the lists of anybody that had most or all of them. This was usually a good sign that the person had other stuff I'd like.

AudioGalaxy had a variation of this, but it was extremely awkward to use.

Are there current systems available that let you do this? I imagine it's more difficult (and probably a lot slower) with the current systems' necessarily decentralized models...

Re:So, If I Don't Like It, I Can Steal It?

[reallocate]

First, you have a moral obligation to obey the law, even if you disagree with it.

We see a lot of juvenile attempts to justify theft by pointing at the RIAA's less-than-subtle behavior. But,the RIAA's behavior is not relevant to this discussion. They could be killing babies, but it still wouldn't change the true nature of filesharing: it is theft.

You can't dress up greed for free music in some kind of civil disobediance garb. Civil disobediance entails people deliberately violating a law so they can provoke arrest in order to challenge the constitutionality of that law in court. So, unless so-called filesharers are willing to find lawyers, get arrested, go to trial, and, if necessary, appeal all the way the Supreme Court, I am inclined to think they're still unprincipled thieves.

OK, Filesharing Is Counterfeiting

[reallocate]

Shoplifting, copyright infringement, counterfeiting...they're all forms of theft to me.

But, what's the difference between making illegal copies of a dollar bill and making illegal copies of a CD? None that I can see. So, let's call filesharing counterfeiting. Happy now?

Re:OK, Filesharing Is Counterfeiting

[miguelitof]

But, what's the difference between making illegal copies of a dollar bill and making illegal copies of a CD? None that I can see. So, let's call filesharing counterfeiting. Happy now?

I'm happy! If your last sentence means that you are going to get off your soapbox. Really, this whole argument is so 2002.

*yawn*...

Please, wake me up when you are less BO-RING! BO-RING! BO-RING!!!

Re:OK, Filesharing Is Counterfeiting

[thirdrock]

Shoplifting, copyright infringement, counterfeiting...they're all forms of theft to me.

It's a good thing you don't work in the justice system. Laws are created for specific types of 'crimes' with specific types of 'punishments'. Hence, they are not the same to anyone that matters.

But, what's the difference between making illegal copies of a dollar bill and making illegal copies of a CD?

You should have stuck with your movie ticket analogy. A dollar bill is legal tender, so there is a big difference between making copies of a dollar bill and a CD. The differences between making a copy of a movie ticket and a CD are small.

None that I can see.

As I said, it's a good thing you don't work in the justice system, if you can't see the difference between counterfeiting legal tender and making a copy of a CD. Or maybe you are astroturfing for the record industry.

So, let's call filesharing counterfeiting.

Why? When it's obviously copyright infringement. Let's call it copyright infringement. Let the RIAA make false statements about it being theft.

Happy now?

Always.

Re:OK, Filesharing Is Counterfeiting

[reallocate]

Shoplifting, counterfeiting, copyight infringement are all specific kinds of criminal behavior that can be subsumed under the broader label of theft.

Pro-filetheft advocates like to pretend that the only thing that can be stolen is a physical entity. But, that is just deliberate wordsmithing by people who need to rationalize their illegal behavior.

Re:OK, Filesharing Is Counterfeiting

[thirdrock]

Shoplifting, counterfeiting, copyight infringement are all specific kinds of criminal behavior that can be subsumed under the broader label of theft.

I assume you think that by repeating that assertion you will eventually make it true. It's not true. In fact, it's just plain wrong.
Counterfeiting and copyright infringement are not, and can not be subsumed under a broader label of theft except semantically. But semantically, I can call making false assertions on slashdot theft, when really it's either stupidity or lying.

Pro-filetheft advocates like to pretend that the only thing that can be stolen is a physical entity.

I make no such assertion or pretension. A person can hack into a bank's computer and transfer "money" from one account to another. The physical money does not either exist, or move. It is still theft, however. Copyright infringement is not theft, no matter how many times you assert it is. If it was theft, then it would be called theft, not copyright infringement. You don't seem to be able to understand that.

But, that is just deliberate wordsmithing by people who need to rationalize their illegal behavior.

It is you who is wordsmithing. Laws are both specific and ambiguous. They are specific on the types of behaviour we as a society wish to prevent, but ambiguous in their scope so as to minimize legal loopholes.

Western legal systems make a very well defined distinction between larceny and copyright infringement, and they do so for good reason. Charges for larceny include degrees of severity based on whether you used a deadly weapon to carry out the act, whether you corrupted company or government officials to aid you plus many other variations.

When persons evade taxes, they are not charged with larceny(theft), they are charged with tax evasion.

When persons demand money to prevent death or destruction, they are charged with extortion, not theft.

Specific laws are created for specific crimes. They carry different degrees of severity and different sentencing. You seem unable to grasp this concept.

You want offtopic?

[Wolfrider]

--Oh come on, everybody knows that Scott Evil (aka "Lyle" - see http://us.imdb.com/Title?0317740 ) was the REAL author of Napster!!

Re:Napster

[Pacer]

You either believe in hoarding pirated material because it makes you l33t and gets you l33t access to all the l33t 0-day BBSes (in, uh, 1986) ... ... or you don't want to spend hard-to-come-by $$$ on decent software/music/what-have-you for casual use, don't really give a shit about intellectual property rights at the end of the day, and just want your song/software/etc. with a minimum of hassle and l33t5p34k (in whatever form it may take -- including civil conversation in IRC).

IRC, newsgroups, these are a pain in the ass compared to point-and-click on-demand downloading via P2P (which can also be, to be fair, a pain in the ass). In 99-00 I only had dial-up (rural area) and the majority of my MP3 collection came from friends' and libraries' CDs which I ripped myself. Napster supplemented me with the odd single. Nowadays I only delve deeper than k-lite if I need some truly funky files.

Also: my musical tastes are not *wildly* divergent but they are certainly not along "top-40" or contemporary lines. The selection of obscure music, then and now, is not as great as it could be but IT IS GREAT NONETHELESS. And no, I have probably not heard of whatever sweet local band you are currently into; and no, this does not make me a pop-culture junkie.