Easy MP3 Distribution

capncook writes "There is a cool new tool out there called Napster that allows anyone to become a publicly accessible FTP site- tapping in to that huge resource of personal mp3 collections that everyone has, but have not been able to share. It's still in beta, but the bugs are mostly harmless, and it certainly does the job- although no Linux version is yet available. RIAA should be scared out of their minds because users are not logged on permanently, so it's hard to track them down to take legal action. "

Comments

Not exactly new

[nd]

I would just like to point out that Napster has been out for quite a LONG time. In fact, it's been out long enough for people to copy the concept (take a look at CuteMX, or whatever it's called). It's basically the same concept, except generalized to support all media and not just mp3.

There is a Linux client

[jkujawa]

It's text-only, and I've not had a chance to
look at it yet, but it is available at http://www.gis.net/~nite/.

Oh, no!

[roystgnr]

No Linux version? How will us Linux users ever
serve files over ftp, then?

security?

[Anonymous Coward]

Opening your HDD to the globe is one thing (http, ftp) but an unknown protocol on an unknown port? hmm. I didn't see enough explanation (or source) to re-assure me this would be a good idea.

For those that don't know but are afraid to ask:

[Imperator]

Napster is a Win32 program (with a text-based Linux beta version that also sorta works) with a poor GUI. It allows you to share your MP3s with all other Napster users and vice versa. You tell Napster how fast your connection is; many people abuse the system by claiming to have a 14.4 so that no one ties up their bandwidth as they download. Napster catalogs your MP3s (those in a directory tree you specify, anyway) and reads their ID3 tags to get searchable information about them. It (I'm guessing here) sends it to the server. You can then search for what you want and download it. Napster supports queued, paused, and resumed downloads, but because of the peer-to-peer nature of the file transfers, you can't be guaranteed that you'll find the same person again. There's also an IRC-like chat feature, which I haven't looked at very much. A disclaimer when you login warns you that they can't take responsibility for any of the content, but very little of it is legal.

Executive summary: if you have a Win32 box, install it and see how easy it is to get (RIAA/lawyer-owned) MP3s. (If you're into that sort of thing, you'll probably like Napster.) If you don't, look at their site and get a better idea of what it does.

have you seen this?

[mnemon1c]

one of the best MP3 search engines is starting thier own "napster" like project. goto http://www.audiogalaxy.com/betatest/
it is a simpler client, and linux client is coming out soon

Napster, et al.

[davidu]

Ok, here is the low down:

First: the RIAA has already taken legal action against Napster. They story is here.

Second: Another program by the folks who make CuteFTP called CuteMX is out. It seems however, that GlobalSCAPE the company that makes it, has removed it from their servers. Maybe they are scared of what is happening to Napster.

I am sure I am gonna get in trouble for this, but I have a version of the Win 95/98 CuteMX exe here. I would appreciate it if people would mirror it quickly, so not to saturate the cable modem...thanks
-Davidu

napster is overrated imho

[Ater]

First of all, I may be redundant, but I would like to emphasize the napster has been here for quite some time, there is a Linux port of napster, and the RIAA already has sued napster, as shown in this article.

Now that I have said that, I still have to wonder why napster is getting so much press as the next big mp3 thing. I have used it many times, and occasionally still do, and I find it to be nothing more than a glorified http search. Here are listed some the biggest flaws I found in napster. Note: I don't want to start a flame war, I honestly want to know why napster is such a big deal considering its vast problems.

1. Quality of mp3's - Napster is cool in that it lets you specify bitrate, but to be honest, that doesnt mean much at all. Try searching for a popular band, say Nirvana at "atleast" 128... you'll find 100's, but then try searching at "at least" 192, you'll find like 3 at most. Its search engine is a little bit better, but it doesnt change the fact that most of napster's content is regurgiated ratio ftp stuff, and the rare high quality songs are just renamed mp3 group releases (apc,bkf,rns,ksi,etc...) that are much quicker to get on irc. It's cool for the people that just want to find a quick song regardless of quality, but really no use for anyone who is knowledgeable about mp3.

2. Server Connections - I have frequent problems getting on the server, I find large amounts of lag when trying to join the channels, and I noticed something else odd. Whenever I leech from a "hot list" site of mine that is online, and I reconnect to the server, the hot list site is no longer to be found online. This has prevented me from getting a lot of complete mp3's/albums.

3. Downloads - Maybe it's just me, but downloading seems a lot slower running through napster's servers. Same goes with viewing lists. If it's not the servers fault, it could be the clogged upload on the other box (see point 4), but I'm on dsl and a rarely get >isdn speeds even when downloading from a t3. Also, why isn't there a way to save queues in case a user logs off in middownload... that would save me lots of time, and why it isn't in is beyond me.

4. Upload control - Herein lies the huge problem. Napster is about sharing, and I'm cool with that, but it gives you NO control over outcoming file transfers. Whats wrong with letting someone limit the amount of downloading users on their box? Whats wrong with killing a user in middownload to save bandwidth? It can really add up on high speed, high content boxes which tend to be targeted en masse for downloads. I can see why colleges are cracking down on napster and blocking it... napster refuses to allow upload limits, the resnet box uploads vast amounts of mp3's, and the college network will obviously experience some drop in speed as this adds up. It's the person's own computer and files... they should have the right to control access to it. I usually put my files in a dummy directory to avoid being leeched to a halt while downloading because of napster. Which brings to me another point... that devious close scheme... if you click the "X" icon to exit, napster only minimizes. For someone inexperienced, this leaves their box continuing to upload files without the user's knowledge. Yet another reason colleges such as UIUC would ban napster... I bet students "closed" napster and it u/led and consumed lots of bandwidth without the student being able to tell it was only minimized. Sure I want to encourage sharing, but deception and force is NOT the way to do it. I trust that users would rather share their files if given some control than hide their archives to avoid napster's ridiculous "sharing enforcement" scheme.

I'm not totally dissing on napster, because I have found some cool stuff there. But, it still has a long way to go from the buggy program it is now. Maybe when some bugs are fixed, people will be closer to their little online cyber-music community. But right now, napster seems more like hype and hoopla, and private ftp sites and irc will remain my methods of choice for getting mp3's

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Napster..

[Weezul]

Napster may go down the tube, but thisissorta their own fault for notmaking it open source. If it was an open source project the RIAA could not kill it since other people would pick it up or they could continue working on it in secret.

I would like to urge the people behind Napster to open source the project before it is too later.. or at least give the source out to trust worthy people with a lisence which GPLs the current Napster source if the company if forces to stop distributing it.

The good news is that now everyone knows about Napster and many many more people are probable using it now, so maybe the RIAA will actually cost themselves big time with this.. and even if they do shut down Napster an open source alternative may take it's place (though the running under Windows is importent for this type of program).

Finally, I believe it is time for those of us who wish topirate to begin developing technologies which aid in piracy. Napster is definitly the right approach since it makes it easy to make data available.

Jeff

BTW> A system that could deliver delayedmessages and make requests from your actual CD collection might be better for those hard to find songs though, i.e. it acts as a CD player too, but it records the songs allongwith your list of mp3s which are then made available. People can request that you rip a song for them and the ripiing process is almost totally automated, i.e. Napster or whatever would ask you to insert the CD for 5min.

Don't worry be happy! for mp3

[gad_zuki!]

Airplay, actually the whole radio/record company dynamic is based on a system of favors(collusion) now that payola scams get caught too easy.

Record companies tell radio stations to play so-and-so this many times a day and radio stations agree but they want 100 cd's to give away, concert tickets, promotial royalties for concerts etc.

Maybe even a promise for the band to come in for an interview, think they want to be up at 6am for your local annoying inane morning show?? Sure its promotion, but its mandatory for the band and they'll get in contractural troubles if they don't show up.

Phone calls to popular radio stations mean nothing. People are calling over and over again for a song thats on the playlist anyway. So the DJ might say, 'This one goes out to Carol in Woodridge.' Carol could have sat on her fat ass eating bonbons and saved herself the nickel and Ricky Martins would still be spewing from her box.

Who decides what bands will be aired is strictly up to the record companies. They *might* make their decision based on fan approval and quality of music, but from my experience its image + profitability + market saturation + minor ability in music. A million dollar studio and a band of good studio musicians plus a decent producer can even make Ricky Martin a star.

In the end copying music probably doesn't steal shit, most people wouldn't or couldn't buy most downloadable songs in the first place. And the ones who do 'steal' are, if they try REAL hard, taking pennies from multi-millionares and a few billionares. Most established musicians don't even care, its the record companies who stare all day at the profit margin, well except maybe Garth Brooks.

Taxes, copyrights, piracy, and paying the artists

[swordgeek]

OK, somewhere between all of the rhetoric on both extremes lies the truth.

The theoretical purpose of copyright is to protect and reward the owner of the intellectual property, i.e. the music (in this case). The practical results of copyright is leaning more and more towards protecting the companies behind the artists.

Furthermore, the recording industry has stated in no uncertain terms that All Unsanctioned Recording Is Illegal. In Canada, Bill C-32 will impose a substantial tax (Digital media, such as CD-R or DAT: 50 cents per 15 minutes of playing time) on _all_ recordable audio media, to "remunerate creators for private copying of their musical works." In other words, all blank media is used for piracy, and all puchasers of said media are pirates. This includes:

1) People who distribute Linux, etc.
2) People who make compilation tapes/CDs of their own *purchased* music!
3) Companies who backup to CDR or DAT.
And very worst of all...
4) Independent musicians, who don't go through a major recording agency!!!

In other words, this bill taxes musicians and consumers, and passes the money on to the corporations.

On the other hand, being found guilty of piracy, we are at least free to pirate music. Specifically; 'In exchange for the levy, section 80 provides that copying of music works for "private use" will no longer be considered infringement.' Oh joy.

Personally, since I'm apparently a criminal (despite the fact that I have no pirated music), I'm tempted to interpret "private use" as meaning copying for free (or the cost of the media) any music for my friends private use. (however, see below)

Of course, this is in Canada, as I said. I don't know the details as well, but the US does have a similar act in place.

One person asked (quite astutely) why the RIAA should give us any respect if we refuse to respect them. The problem is that they are:
1) Preemptively labelling ALL of us as criminals.
2) Behaving like the proverbial "Jack-booted thugs."
3) Benefiting themselves and the industry, rather than the artists.

More than anything, point #3 make this an organisation not worthy of respect. Consider this snipped from their own website (copied freely under the 'fair use' act)
---
Our members are the companies that comprise the most vibrant national music industry in the world.

Our mission is to foster a business and legal climate that supports and promotes our members' creative and financial vitality around the world.
---

See anything about the artists in there?

Quite honestly, the industry itself is promoting piracy. Period. They get what they deserve.

However, the artists _do_ deserve to be paid, and they do need some kind of (financial) incentive to keep recording. If music were 100% free, then professional musicians wouldn't exist (by definition).

So after all of this rambling, I would ask this of you /.ers: Pay for the indies (always!), and if you copy other music, send the artists themselves five bucks or so. If a popular artist got five hundred $5 bills, they might realise that they could market and sell the album without the use of a greedy, corrupt organisation.

And don't stop fighting!

Colin
(who has exactly one burned CD, which will be replaced by a purchased copy as soon as I can find it)