Slashdot Mirror
Dell and Napster Going Directly to Colleges
An Anonymous Reader writes "Forbes is reporting on the teaming of Dell and Napster to provide music directly to college campuses. The solution will alleviate network bottlenecks caused by illegal music downloads will enable colleges to use Dell blade servers on campus to store music from Napster's library locally. This will allow network processing speed to remain fast while hundreds of students simultaneously download digital music." From the article: "Campuses were 'shrinking the [available] bandwidth on the network to discourage' illegal downloading, says John Mullen, vice president of Dell's higher education business. He says schools want a way to minimize the impact of music downloads on their networks and encourage students to shift toward legal downloads."
"He says schools want a way to minimize the impact of music downloads on their networks and encourage students to shift toward legal downloads."
It just takes one student sys admin with access to the whole freaking library, and there you have it, piracy at it's best.
"I cannot think of any need in childhood as strong as the need for a father's protection." -- Sigmund Freud
Almost everyone has their base music collection built by now, they would just be adding songs here and there. This won't help bandwidth issues, the big culprit is movie and tv downloads. I would just laugh a rep that came and talked to me about their service.
The push to promote "legal music downloads" on college campuses is only going to come back and bite these schools in the rear. Once they start taking it upon themselves to monitor network usage and to some small extent regulate it as well, they forego their Common Carrier status and put themselves at risk of being held liable when the student users behave badly.
By not restricting the network, they can always claim ignorance and place all the responsibility on the students themselves. The students are the ones breaking or obeying the law, and it is they who ought to be responsible for their actions. The school, by becoming a sort of network nanny, takes an amount of responsibility and can be held responsible because of that.
I think that the schools should either get out of the internet provider service altogether or just let the kids do what they want to do. Trying to ride both sides of the fence is just going to lead to headaches down the road.
Jesus saved me from my past. He can save you as well.
What you need to remember is that Univ Network Admins have to balance the needs of students, faculty and staff when it comes to network usage. I was at Penn State when Napster really took off and even lived in the dorms. I was also a computer lab student manager for one of the colleges at the time. One day we all woke up and the network was just slammed. It had been getting progressively slower for weeks leading up to this point as everyone and their brother was downloading off of Napster (and uploading a fair bit too). The traffic from the student housing network eventually flooded the entire state-wide University system.
Network traffic is like traffic in major city areas. You can keep adding capacity but people will just use up to that capacity no matter how large. We had a pretty big pipe to the net, but the student network segment alone saturated it, preventing faculty and staff from conducting research, using university systems related to classes etc... In short, students downloading music had managed to shut down any and all legitimate academic uses. The University could no longer operate.
The solution initially was to put an overall cap on the student segment, limiting all residence halls to one shared 20mbit connection. Needless to say that was a nightmare and students had faster connections dialing up to the Univ modem bank. Then they moved to bandwith caps. 1gig up, 1 gig down per week. A pretty reasonable limit if you ask me.
You want to cast blame at the admins, saying they're evil and uncaring and just out to screw the students, but you have to always remember that there are others who have just as much need for the network as students do. When it comes to downloading music and movies, I'd even say they have a more legitimate claim too. Giving students unlimited bandwidth has been proven to be a bad idea. Given limited resources, they have to portion everything off so the most people have usable access for legitimate purposes.
Quick, someone call Dell & Napster! Tell them that an Anonymous Coward on Slashdot doesn't need thier service and to halt all production immediately!
I don't plan on using this service for some of the exact same reasons you do. Additionally, I prefer listening to the actual CD itself in most cases. Or when I do listen to my digital library, I like knowing I ripped it myself with my own personal fanatical settings and preferences.
But I still fail to see why that merits a boycott just because you, personally, have no need for their service and product. Is this service going to do you harm some how? Is it going to prevent you from doing exactly what you are doing so far? No. Because you won't participate in it.
It's actually a rather decent offering with a specific market in mind. Clearly you and I aren't part of that market, but why ruin it for those who might be?
Grow up.
My campus (Southwest Missouri State University) just went to this plan with Napster, much to the chagrin of our computer community. The student government association said it sounded like a great idea while most of the students complained about it. The issue isn't that students have to pay to subscribe for the service, but rather that it is paid for by a student fee increase. This means that every student pays a fee for this service, including the ones that A) don't use it and/or B) don't have a computer. Moreover, the students that really download a lot are going to continue doing it through established mediums such as Kazaa or Bittorrent which will have a larger library than the ones Napstar establishes on the local servers. In general, it's a waste of money, but maybe it'll convince them to lift the bandwidth limit they imposed on campus last year. That's about the only benefit I can see from putting this plan into effect: a false sense of security from which many can benefit. Probably not worth the fee increase though.