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.
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.
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.
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.