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.
The record industry still hasnt rapped its arms around paid download services...try finding one paid service that has ALL of the music companies collections. I dont mind PAYING for the songs if I can actually find them.
The right service would be one that has all the music companies collections and has a mix of paid and free song files.
Digital downloads could be much more profitable than CDs.
Really? More profitable? This wouldn't have to do with the fact that digitally distributed music being more expensive than tranditional optical media. With individual songs at $0.99 and rising, you'd have to be an RIAA executive to think that it wasn't protifable enough as it is.
This slashdot-related signature is a stub. You can help kihjin by expanding it.
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.
Well the recording-industry is, and has been suffering from a frog-in-the-well syndrome for a long time. Instead of trying to figure out disruptive technology, and how they can adapt/enhance their business model, they try to threaten it or squash it out of existence.
Like the article said, the RIAA's biggest mistake was trying to "cure" the symptoms and not the cause(s). So they went after Napster, but they failed to (to use a cliche) see which way the wind was blowing. They should have seen what was coming with napster - how P2P would be a major force to reckon with. Instead of seeing how they could use P2P to their advantage, they decided they wanted to crush it altogether.
How successful have they been at treating the symptoms? Now what exactly are the causes? Firstly I think it's the completely shitty kind of music that they churn out - the factory made, cookie-cutter style crap. I understand the whole deal about trying to make money for their shareholders, but seriously - a lot of the music is crap (which is why I try to support local bands and listen to indie stuff). A CD may have 1 or 2 good songs, but then you have to buy all the other 10 songs that come with it, and that you may not like as much. Clearly this wasn't good enough for them, because they want you to buy it all.
I wonder how different the entire scene would have been if they RIAA had seen the changes happening and adopted a model that we see today - where they can charge per song.
But like I said... frog in the well.
Vivin Suresh Paliath
http://vivin.net
I like
Trying to kill off P2P is like squeezing a blob of jelly, it just pours out between your fingers and reassembles after a while...
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.
I'm not trying to justify anything here. It's just that you have to consider how people will react regardless of the law. Our jails are full of people convicted for the possession and use of illegal drugs. Does this mean that we're winning the war on drugs?
If you don't want crime to pay, let the government run it.
Let's see -- I can:
1) Buy music from itunes. It will be in a format that only Apple players can play, will have digital restrictions, and will be at lower bitrate then some competitors. It will cost the nearly the same as the full CD if I buy the album ($14 at Walmart vs $10 on itunes).
2) Buy music from other server. It will be in a format that can play on many players, but not on the popular Apple players. It will have digital restrictions. Quality may be greater then the Apple offering (depending on the store.) It will cost the nearly the same as the full CD if I buy the album ($14 at Walmart vs $10 online).
3) Buy music on CD. I get great quality at a slightly higher cost, but I have to buy all the songs on a CD. I also have to travel to the store instead of sitting at home (or work). I do get artwork and physical media, but have no backup unless I make my own. Increasingly, I may be faced with attempts to block me from making a backup or traveling copy.
4) Buy the music from a Russian site. Incredibly low price, selection of different bitrates. Artists probably won't be paid, but the RIAA won't either. Won't be sued by RIAA for illegally downloading. Morally not quite as "right" as other options.
5) Download the music for FREE through kazaa / etc. Quality ranges, but I will likely have to hunt for a real copy of popular songs. I risk being sued by the RIAA. Morally, one of the least "right" choices.
6) Steal the CD from a store. All the benefits of a CD without the cost. Unless you get caught. Still, you will may very well be penalized less if you get caught then if you had downloaded the song from kazaa. Morally a "wrong" choice.
7) Make a copy from a friend. Quality ranges depending on your friends original source, but it's free and may be legal under home taping laws. Morally questionable.
Of course, the RIAA isn't interested in choices. They're only interested in money and that's why this article is interesting. As far as I know it's not even a dupe! +1 intersting for Slashdot!
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.