Napster Being Shut Down

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Posted by Soulskill on Friday December 2, 2011 @05:20AM from the seth-green-unavailable-for-comment dept.

helix2301 writes "Napster was one of the earliest and most popular P2P music-sharing services. After a long legal battle that saw Napster slowly gutted in the face of infringement lawsuits, it was reinvented as a legitimate music download service. The resurrected Napster is now being shut down. Rhapsody has completed its purchase of Napster and will be absorbing its subscribers and assets."

15 of 213 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Without Napster we'd still be buying all CD's by elrous0 · 2011-12-02 05:21 · Score: 5, Insightful

The music industry had to be dragged kicking, clawing, and screaming into the 21st century. If it weren't for Napster and iTunes we'd all still be driving down to the record store to buy $15 CD's, just to get the one or two songs you actually want and the 10 other songs that are complete filler. It's sad that Napster had to be a sacrifice on the road to the industry finally waking up and realizing that people actually want digital music and they want it at a reasonable per-song price--that we'd had enough of getting gouged under the old LP/CD system.
Of course, they're still grumbling about it--and many of them still want to slap DRM on their music. But at least Napster (and later Kazaa) were there to scare the industry and make them realize that people want to download digital music, and iTunes was there to show them that, yes, you can still make money off it (but we're not buying your overpriced albums anymore for one song).
Of course, I'm sure the arrogant stoner at my local record store hates this, as he no longer gets to snort at my record choices and tell me about how *HIS* taste is so much more hip than mine.

--
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
1. Re:Without Napster we'd still be buying all CD's by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-02 05:22 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Except now you're paying $15 for a digital copy, and $10 for the CD, or $1.99 for that "just one track".
2. Re:Without Napster we'd still be buying all CD's by masternerdguy · 2011-12-02 05:26 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  If your smart you grab the CD and rip it, then store the CD in a safe place. You save money and have no DRM.
  
  --
  To offset political mods, replace Flamebait with Insightful.
3. Re:Without Napster we'd still be buying all CD's by Anonymous Coward · 2011-12-02 05:28 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  If you only want to hear 2 out of 12 songs on an album then you must listen to some shitty bands.
4. Re:Without Napster we'd still be buying all CD's by jaymz666 · 2011-12-02 05:28 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  And a backup! Oh, and liner notes and pretty pictures.
  Try selling a used download at the local Half Price Books & Music.
5. Re:Without Napster we'd still be buying all CD's by ackthpt · 2011-12-02 05:32 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Except now you're paying $15 for a digital copy, and $10 for the CD, or $1.99 for that "just one track".
  I am completely fine with $1.99 for one track, if the rest of the album isn't of any interest. I'm an old Album Rock dude, but will be among the first to recognize how many one/two hit wonders there have been where I won't want the whole CD.
  
  --
  
  A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
6. Re:Without Napster we'd still be buying all CD's by MightyMartian · 2011-12-02 05:32 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Yeah, they just record twelve versions of the same song for each album. I swear that I cannot tell the difference between any Nickelback song. It's like if the Beatles only recorded dozens of variations of She Loves You.
  
  --
  The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
7. Re:Without Napster we'd still be buying all CD's by elrous0 · 2011-12-02 05:33 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Well, there are bands whose albums you buy and then there are bands who make one or two decent songs and then sleepwalk through the rest of the recording sessions. At least now I have an option to treat them differently.
  
  --
  SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
8. Re:Without Napster we'd still be buying all CD's by elrous0 · 2011-12-02 05:34 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Anything my girlfriend likes.
  
  --
  SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
9. Re:Without Napster we'd still be buying all CD's by icebraining · 2011-12-02 05:43 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  If you're smart you download that rip and buy some merchandising from the artist. You save money, have no DRM, probably pay more to the artist and get some nice t-shirt or similar besides the music.
  
  --
  Dilbert RSS feed
10. Re:Without Napster we'd still be buying all CD's by kiwimate · 2011-12-02 06:17 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  This. I haven't lived in New Zealand for a few years, so I don't know if Real Groovy Records on Queen Street in Auckland still exists. But it was amazing. A room full of used albums, many of which were genuine rarities that you couldn't find anywhere else.
  And that includes on-line. There are albums that I cannot buy on-line. The mega-stores don't carry them. They're not available from the artist directly. But I can sometimes find them at the local used music store.
  Or I could, before they went out of business because nobody buys albums any more. I do care about the mega-stores going out of business, because there are people who work there who are without a job (I'm talking about the high school kids who had a weekend job there, that kind of person). But I care more about the independent shop that was started with someone's life savings because he loved music. He's the guy who'd find the rarities. And he's the guy who lost his life savings.
11. Re:Without Napster we'd still be buying all CD's by thisnamestoolong · 2011-12-02 08:40 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  First of all, you are misunderstanding the reason that artists create things. People create things because they want to create things. This is why there are so many starving artists out there; millions of people are willing to go without in order to continue focusing on expressing themselves and creating art. Any musician who molds their output completely around profits is NOT an artist by any stretch of the imagination; they are a corporate shill and a hack. This is the biggest problem with the media companies, they used to produce art, now they generate content. It quite honestly makes me throw up a little bit in my mouth and makes me yearn for the day that the RIAA, MPAA and all the other associated blood-sucking, soul-killing leeches die off and sink into the mud like the filthy parasites that they are.
  
  --
  To the haters: You can't win. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
12. Re:Without Napster we'd still be buying all CD's by GrumpySteen · 2011-12-02 10:33 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  > Suppose in the (not too distant) future, next to no one ops to buy entire CDs vs. a single track. Won't all artists then be one or two hit wonders?
  It depends on how talented the artist is and how devoted the artist's fans are. There are people who will only buy singles that they hear and like, but many people prefer to buy albums (especially if they've heard several songs they like one one album). A few will fall in love with the music and buy absolutely everything the artist produces.
  Look at Lady Gaga's sales for The Fame Monster. 5.8 million albums in 2010. The songs were available as an MP3 single for $0.99 the same time the album became available at the end of 2009. Half the songs were on The Fame which released in 2008. People still bought millions of copies of the album.
  For a (much) smaller artist, look at The Dollyrots. It's probable that you've never heard of them, though they've gotten enough exposure that it's not impossible. They are definitely not a superstar band.
  They did a kickstarter campaign to raise funds for a new album. Of the 540 people that pledged money up front, only 39 pledged the minimum required to get a download of the album or less and 110 more pledged the minimum to get a physical CD. 291 (over 50%) of the people pledged more than the minimum necessary to get the album in the form they wanted it in.
  The rewards varied, but as you get up into the hundreds of dollars, you can be certain that you're looking at the hardcore fans who will buy anything this group produces. 15 people pledged $300 each to get the band to write songs for them (which, since there are so many, are going to be made into a 2nd album that everyone who pledged gets a copy of). Two people pledged $1000 each to spend a day in the studio with the band where they get to watch, sing gang vocals and join in on hand claps. One idiot pledged $500 to get the album and a bunny suit (disclaimer: yes, I'm the idiot). These are fans who will not only buy anything the band produces, but will act as patrons to help fund the band's production of new material.
  So... yes, there may be fewer people who buy albums, but there will always be people who buy albums even if individual songs are available. There will also always be fans who will buy everything produced by their favorite artists and dedicated fans with money who will help their favorite bands far more than a CD sale ever could.
  The flip side of this is the artist's viewpoint and the realities of how music is produced. It's more cheaper and faster to have a dozen songs you want to record when you go in the studio than to do a dozen sessions for one song each. If you record it all in one go, for example, you only set up all the equipment once, as opposed to setting it up a dozen times. You're also in the groove as you move from one song to the next. You don't have to spend a lot of time warming up and getting ready to record. The same thing applies to what the sound engineers engineers do as well. They need setup time and time with the band to discuss what the band wants. Mastering a dozen songs in one session is far faster than a dozen sessions with one song mastered in each and sound engineers charge by the hour.
  tl;dr - Albums will continue to exist because there are plenty of fans who will buy albums and it's cheaper to record music an album at a time. And you should totally buy Dollyrots albums or might find a guy in a bunny suit peeing on your lawn.
Who cares ? by mbone · 2011-12-02 05:22 · Score: 5, Insightful

Really, who cares ? The original Napster is long gone; this is just a corporate entity that bought the name.
Re:morality by cheekyjohnson · 2011-12-02 05:29 · Score: 1, Insightful

And then cue defense of copyrights/patents in 3...2...1...
Anyone who says anything that disagrees with my opinion is just delusional. I'm the only correct one!

--
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!