Slashdot Mirror
Napster's Learning Curve
Chabil Ha' writes "CNET News is reporting on Napter's learning curve. There are some interesting revelations about their dealings with the music industry." From the article: "We made one last effort to convince the labels that they should do a deal with us. A little-known underground product called Gnutella had just surfaced. It was a P2P file-sharing program that required no central server and no company to operate it. If the labels didn't do a deal with us, and instead put us out of business, then Gnutella and its derivatives would become unstoppable. If we worked together now we could convert the market to a paid-subscription model. If we didn't do a deal, chaos would ensue. The labels didn't believe us and didn't really understand what this Gnutella threat was."
And now we have BitTorrent! It doesn't really matter what the labels do, P2P won't go away.
Please stop APK.. you're only hurting yourself.
Wow, the Napster creaters take a lot of blame for this, and I agree they are partly at fault with the failure of Napster. The part I do not agree with is them taking all the blame.
The RIAA had a chance to cut a deal with Napster and look ahead to what millions of users already knew about the future of aquiring music, but they decided to sue instead. They had a chance to grab the online industry just as it was starting, but instead took the wrong route and now look at them... Sueing anyone and everyone because they still haven't figured out that they can sell MP3's for cheaper than CD's and turn a BIGGER profit.
Understand who your customer is, what problems you need to solve, and how much they are willing to pay for it.
Ohhh! But No! The way the RIAA works now is:
Have your customers understand you, what problems (ooh!! P2P!! PIRACY!!) you need to have them solve for you, and how much you can make pay for it
From what I've seen, the RIAA hasn't been about understanding their customers. At all.
Vivin Suresh Paliath
http://vivin.net
I like
Napster was clearly the pioneer in the music download business.
And they clearly forgot the old saying:
"How do you identify the pioneers? They are the ones with arrows in their backs!"
What you meant to say, was:
The more you tighten your definition of Fair Use, the more content will slip through your fingers.
(Leia to Vader)
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
> If we didn't do a deal, chaos would ensue.
I believe that chaos would have ensued anyway.
A RIAA-sanctioned version Napster would have had SOME kind of encumberance for the user. (Such as limited selection, low bitrate, monthly fee, non-MP3 format, DRM, or some other bothersome detail.)
We subsequently found out that P2P is awesome for distributing large F/OSS binaries, such as Live CDs and so forth. Therefore, something like BitTorrent would have had to been developed anyway.
After that, it would have been inevitable that people would start using P2P to bypass the bothersome restrictions of Napster.
But with the ability of the customers to buy individual songs at their discretion, the labels can no longer force them to also pay for 10 crap songs that they don't want to hear. Ever.
However, perhaps with the added freedom customers would be a bit more agog in their music purchases, making up for the loss in revenue and perhaps then some.
Who can say? I am not an economist.
Ironically enough, the problem here is that the RIAA is putting principles before profit. But their goal is not to maximize profit, but to minimize risk and perpetuate the status quo, even when such things are impossible.
English is easier said than done.
The recording industry's M.O. is simple: rip off children by selling them pieces of plastic at an obscene markup. They aren't interested in changing that in any way. Let them join other obsolete industries in the dustbin of history. Don't buy CDs.
The Uncoveror: It's the real news.
Which is why we all need to start refering to the act of making and supporting 100 year copyrights as "Child Molestation". That way, in 200 years, our decendents can find 200 year old references to our copyrights system that legitimizes calling RIAA type organizations "Child Molesters". I don't say this tounge in cheek. If someone using an unfair comparison a very long time ago legitimizes its use in our language. (which is not totally unreasonable) Then we must keep in mind that someone must coin the term. So, I hereby coin the term "Child Molester" to refer to companies that rape our inner child by abusing copyright/patant/trademark systems.
#7 is morally questionable? Sounds like the RIAA and MPAA are making the impression they've been wanting to make. That people would even consider two highschool buddies going home and making a copy of one's album for the other to use as being "morallyh questionable" is very sad. We might as well not even have a fair use / home copying law.
You forgot:
3b) Order a CD online. If you look around for a bit, you'll probably get it for less than what you'd pay in a store (although that may be offset by shipping costs); you don't have to get up from your comfy chair to buy it, and if you buy it used on eBay or so, chances are that it'll be even cheaper - and also, the RIAA won't get a share of this particular sale (they already did when the original owner bought it), so you also can feel comfortable that you're not supporting them financially.
Also, with regard to 7), whether it's morally questionable or not depends on where you're from. In many places, you pay extra fees whenever you buy a disc or a blank CD-R, supposed to compensate copyright holders for the losses from private copying, but in those cases, it's not morally questionable anymore - they are getting compensated, and that fact actually gives you a (moral, if not legal) right to copy CDs from your friends, too. So, if you know someone in Canada, for example, why not ask them to mail copies of their CDs to you? They already paid for the right to do that, so it should be safe both legally and morally.
quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
I think I missed that part of the law. Where in the home recording / fair use act does it state that "if you really really like it lots and lots" comes into it?
The simple fact is, sharing music is not the same as piracy. Copying some songs for and from friends is not the same as running a major bootleg operation where I duplicate movies and albums and repackage them and sell them for a profit as a business.
I'm pretty sure a good three generations of kids (and adults for that matter) had no problem copying albums for each other and it was never breaking the law and nobody ever felt there was some moral dilemma there.
So by your logic, if someone really really liked a book they read at the library, they are MORALLY OBLIGATED to send the $50 to the author as just-compensation?
It is morally questionable.
no, no, It's not. Sharing information is not 'morally questionable.' if 'makign a dub' is morally questionable then 'borrowing ait for a week' is a morally questionable. if 'borrowing for a week' is morally questionable then playing it over speakers, in a non sound proof room, while people other than the 'purchaser' are present is 'morally questionable' i'm afraid not. Sharing information is not a morally questionable act. Quite clearly the information was being shared BECAUSE that Is what ONE DOES with information.
however, a person who only 'obtains' information without ever comensating anyone Is morally questionable. The process of sharing the information is not, it is the complete disreguard for recompensation that is in fact morally questionable. the fact that the information was shared is not the problem, the probme is that joe luser who obtained his information via data sharing refused to 'ever' monitarily recompensate anyone involved in marketing or producing of making that information available. But say you know this Joe Luser personally, and you know that he Is not such a morally objectional guy, but that he rather prefers to support artist by Going To Concerts. so Knowing that he's recompnosating artists, you Share Information with him, in the hopes that he will someday go to a concert by the 'band' whom you 'shared' the cd of with joe. the logic is a bit 'optimistic, and slightly dubious, but not so morally objectionable as say, knowing for a fact that Joe is a Selfish bastard who could care less, and just wants something for nothing, and will only ever spend his money benefiting himself maximally and other people to the very least possible.
But then every joe luser who chooses to shop at wal-mart instead of some other store with a slightly 'better' track record is guilty of that, so if you're gonna make that a 'morally objectional' crime you're going to have to shut down one hell of a lot of wal-marts.
didn't think of that did you?
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
The music industry has had it their way for so long that they simply can not grasp the concept of sharing the piece of the pie, even if it's a huge ass pie. They want it all.
To put it simply for the record executes (who are too stupid to understand basic math): you can have all of this lovely McDonalds hot apple pie (contents may be hot), or you can have half of this full-sized, deep-dish apple pie.
The record executives will, of course, take the McDonalds pie and sue the bakery out of existence.
-- Will program for bandwidth