Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Music Media

An MP3 Update 94

Posted by Hemos from the too-legit-to-quit! dept.
There's been a number of things happening of late in the MP3 world - first off, MP3.com has complied with the Federal Court ruling by silencing (their term) major label albums. They're still including classical and indie tracks, but not much major label stuff. Also, ZD is carrying a story about Dr. Dre gearing up to ask Napster to ban users a la Metallica. I also got an e-mail from folks at SpeakOut who are trying to help out people hit by the Metallica/Napster deal - so, if you got banned check it out.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

A MP3 Update More

A MP3 Update

Comments Filter:
  • I'm not surprised that mp3.com lost in court - their whole site is built on copied material and beam it was just the one which was easiest to take to court. mp3.com's entire business is based around pirating other people's work and making it their own....

    mp3.com more or less got the unsigned/low profile artists from the internet underground music archive.

    my.mp3.com looks exactly like myplay.com - I'm just waiting for mp3.com to copy the 'Publish A Playlist' functionality into my.mp3.com - I can see it coming. (at least

    They even stole the 'Anywhere, Anytime' line from myplay.....

    Or how about this
    http://artists.mp3s.com/artists/78/penny_framsta d.html
    Penny Framstad - offer a track called "Even Angels Fall". While at myplay.com one of the free tracks they offer is the *Original* version (http://www.myplay.com/mp/promo/free_music.jsp?act =artist&tid=634033) - even their artsts copy mp3.com's competitors.

    ;-)

    So... can anyone point out what mp3.com has done which makes them the hero in so many slashdotter's eyes? They're like microsoft, rushing out copies of other people's technology and trying to make that the standard by being the biggest.
  • I'm once again disappointed in the moderators. This isn't a troll. It's utter bullshit, but it's not a troll. Anyway...

    I could understand smaller bands sueing napster, because they may very well be taking money from a band that has very little if no following to begin with.

    Yeah. And if they have so little, just how the hell do you expect them to sue Napster? I don't know too many lawyers that work for the warm fuzzies. (Actually, I don't know any lawyers, and consider myself fortunate.)

    However Selloutica, and Dr. Dre are QUITE established and have money to wipe their asses with thousand dollar bills! They are the last people who should be worring about losing money!

    Typical narrow-minded view. One possible reason is that they're concerned about losing money, but that doesn't make much sense, now, does it? Some other possibilities:

    1. They remember what it's like to wipe with toilet paper instead of thousand dollar bills. They might have some sympathy for those musicians that are doomed to a life of Charmin (or worse yet, that cardboard you find in public bathrooms... ouch...).
    2. They just might be trying to help out those toilet-paper-using musicians because they have the money and forum to do so.
    3. They are trying to protect their work and the law. Don't forget that it's a law. If you want to break it, that's fine. But shut the hell up about it.

    Especially when the majority of the public doesn't even know what an mp3 is.

    Change to "majority of the public with heads up asses for the last 6 months" and your statement might hold water.

    CD sales have been astronomical over the past year, and yet they still complain!

    I said it before. Album sales are up for the same reason they always go up. Don't feed me that "I'm sampling music and buying the CD" bullshit. Album sales always increase, and might be just a little higher if people weren't pirating music.

    Anyone got a spare thousand dollar bill? I need to wipe this guy's post off my screen.

  • Once more, for the hopelessly dense - only people that made Metallica songs available for download are on the list.

    That's what they say. I know for a fact that I haven't shared any Metallica songs; I don't share any songs! I leech! The only thing I've done on Napster with regards to Metallica as of late was search for them right after I heard about this whole banning issue. Lo and behold, I found people still sharing them. I didn't download any!

    I just want to see the proof. Show me the logs that say when I did this, and what song I was sharing! That's all. I'm not signing or filling out any legally binding forms or agreements until I see evidence that I even did something wrong!

    Napster user "Neuracnu_Coyote"

  • We are living in a part of history that is seeing a lot of changes. I see this type of stories like the battle of the new way of doing things versus the old way of doing things, and all those executives and groups of persons are trying to keep everything static and without change, because they profit a lot of this way of doing things. I see the future as everything being Open, and we are definitely seeing this in the computer industry. Soon no one will have to worry about money. If we were in such a society, people could share their work for free, distribute it, being books, music, software, videos, etc. Everyone will have the chance to experience the creation of that person, and the person that created it will not need any monetary reward, because his necessities will be rewarded and all the rewards he wants is people appreciating what he does, and the intellectual boost he gets doing such work.
  • I really think it's important to work on winning them over to free distribution.

    I think it might be pretty easy. To get the RIAA to promote them, the artists must give up any and all rights to their art FOREVER. To get the people to promote them, all they have to do is say it's o.k. The Law needs to reflect this arrangement and protect the right to sell, or it will be too difficult to enforce as very powerful cartels will try to hijack both the Law and the art in order to sell another's work for profit. If we give the art back to the artists, create good laws, and teach respect for sound laws (pun!), I think the transition might go fairly easy. Altough the more time it takes, the gentler the road will be.

    Note: this will also increase competition by a HUGE amount, but who here is against a little friendly competition. Besides these guys [riaa.com], of course.
    --
  • When the Exxon Valdez spilled people sent all sorts of creative things to their PR office like oil smeared stuffed animals. So what could we send Metallica to let them know how reviled they are? Nazi flags? Demo tapes with titles like "Lars Sucks Ass?"
  • Unban yourself from v.6

    1. Uninstall and delete everything Napster related.

    2) Click on Start, Run, type in regedit. Navigate to this key: HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\software\Napster. On the right side of the window after you click on the Napster folder, delete the key that says "CurrentUser". Also delete any folders below the Napster folder. (i.e. click on the plus sign and remove all those folders that have usernames.)

    3. Now do a search (ctl-f) for these things one at a time:
    35D38C13-1434-AB7E-003483943341AA
    A1AD8C13-1383-5343-DCC38E43FF0AAE

    CAD8C813-1F34-1B3E-00CEAE43FF0AAD

    Delete
    every instance that you find of these keys. Hit F3 to continue searching. There are about 3 or 4 instances of each of these keys.

    4. Reboot your system. (just in case.)
  • Mr. Dre, Mr. NWA, Mr. AK, F*** Tha Police but you sick NetPD on me today?
  • Although this is true under the DMCA, it was my impression that, originally, Napster stated that it would remove users who were violating copyright, PERIOD. It did not say 'following the guidelines of the DMCA.. blah blah blah...'.
    It also notified Metallica's lawyers that, if metallica would be so kind as to point out which users were infringing, they would be blocked.
  • I went to get on Napster this evening and it told me I banned by Metallica. Hypocrisy in Action [xoom.com] What really ticks me off about this is whole the music industry is using Metallica as a puppet. They're "artists" protecting their "art." An "artist" is merely another catch-phrase being hurled lately. Lets call drug dealers "street pharmacists" then. They're just MUSICIANS who make MUSIC not art producing artists.

    It's funny how their executive bosses who are making ten times what they are just happen to be so quiet during this ordeal. But people already are weary of the executives so they use one of the people's favorite "artists". It's just political propaganda they are feeding us over the mess. Blur the facts, confuse people as much as possible. Create FUD. Typical guerilla tactics.

    Metallica endorsed people taping their concerts just a few years ago but these people were never kicked out of their concert much less had their players taken away. So how is that any different?

    Another quirk in this fiasco is Paylars.com [paylars.com]. Thankfully they have only recieved $261. Interestingly enough there is a line below the logo in the upperleft hand corner that states the site is not affiliated with Metallica.

    IMHO, music should under some license similar to the BSDL/GPL. It would allow people who had the love do it for the love of it. Not a gaggle of suits telling us what the new trend to consume is. These "artists" don't deserve to be making well over ten million dollars a year while some government employee who designed weapons is now homeless after defense spending cuts and Vietnam vets who are missing limbs live in a cardboard box. Metallica has a lot of gaul going after their fans who have spent hundreds of dollars on albums, merchandise, and concert tickets.

    The URL they want you to go to Infringe? [napster.com] is basically an admission of guilt on your part. Just having some Metallica mp3's on my computer doesn't mean I obtained them from Napster nor does it mean that I transfered them on Napster. Being on a 28.8 doesn't give me much overhead so I can't necessarily transfer any even if I wanted to. I had (threw them away twenty minutes ago) several Metallica albums. Maybe I just made some mp3's from the albums? Or who can say I didn't obtain them from some dime-a-dozen ratio ftp?

    I tried editing my registry after deleting, reinstalling and creating a new user name but I was stilled banned. I even attempted to get on from multiple ISPs. They couldn't be banning entire IP ranges, that is too clandestine. So I did a regedit looking for any Napster entries in my registry. HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE/Software/Napster was the only entry to be found. I went through the uninstall/reinstall/new user process again but I am still banned. I don't want their software on my machine which I'm not using! I was never told what exactly I am guilty of. No specifics were mentioned at all. Only ambiguous mentions of infringement. What exact songs I am guilty of "illegaling" owning?

  • That's all I did, searched through the registry for Napster and under HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Napster there is a key with my username. I just deleted this and when I restarted Napster I could create a new account. This time I've learnt, don't share files.

    Funny though, when I started Napster the first time after being banned, it automatically upgraded me to Beta 6, but it wouldn't let me connect. It didn't actually tell me I was banned because of the Metallica thing, I just couldn't connect. And because I'm behind a firewall, they couldn't be banning based on IP.

    Chris.
    --
    Chris
  • Sue Lexicon? I hate to break it to you, but Lexicon reverb units are a staple in all professional recording studios. If I was making a big pop album, I probably wouldn't end up going to a studio that hadn't spent a lot over $10 000 for Lexicon equipment.
  • Lets start a site ihatemetallica.org and then buy used Metallica CD's and sell them at the same price they were bought for. This way they get nothing and their fans ( If they have any left ) can get their music. Or we can all have a BBQ and cook all of their merchandise and send Metallica a video of it to let them know what their fans think of them now.
  • OK Gomer... let me be more specific! If I rip a cd that I paid for and then rip it and put the file in a public directory on my personal machine that has the ability to stream data, or maybe me and 10 friends build a netwok that allows each of us each a shared directory. (i.e. a legal copy can be heard by anyone without it moving from one hard-drive to another)
  • People don't have memory but can still interpret their visual stimiluses. If they put two articles reguarding the same issue right next to each other, that would be too absurd. If they put articles reguarding the issue a few days apart, its all good.
  • there's no law that says that I must protect my data. I checked.
  • Good insight. I am not flaming you, but here are my responses to your corrections:

    - The RIAA opposed these things, but bands did not come forward individually to oppose them. A coalition may have showed some real resistance better than the modern "I'll fight you only when it hurts me not too" attitude. The RIAA is powerless without allies and lobbyists.

    - My fault for not being clear, but I was not implying that the Grateful Dead opposed bootlegging. I was trying to contrast the speed of the fastest human music exchange network with the current Napster reach. Also, when I spoke of bootlegging, I was not referring to the GD specifically as they are the level-headed exception.

    - Honestly did not know the last part, good info. I would never accuse the Grateful Dead in particular of being a**holes in the area of distribution versus art. They were the coolest ever in this arena. Too bad they never profited from their "business model" :)

    -L
  • Some corrections:

    The RIAA did oppose CD-Rs and recordable tape.. they just lost those battles.

    Also, the Grateful Dead encouraged the taping of concerts and the trading of those live tapes for no profit. They were greatly opposed to selling those shows for a profit.

    When they found a CD store that carried "imports," rather than sue the place out of business, they just bought it. The imports went away, the employees kept their job, and everyone was happy.

    Maybe Metallica should buy napster....

    wish
    ---
    $ su
    who are you?
    $ whoami
    whoami: no login associated with uid 1010.

  • their whole site is built on copied material and beam it was just the one which was easiest to take to court

    That just isn't true!

    So... can anyone point out what mp3.com has done which makes them the hero in so many slashdotter's eyes?

    Their original plan was pretty cool, and I've used it as a customer several times: they offer MP3s free for download. You download MP3s, and decide what you like. If you like some, you buy the DAM CDs through their site. They burn the CD and print a cover on demand and mail it. You end up paying $8, and the artist gets some money. No retail stores, no MTV payola, no big labels, etc. Furthermore, while you're waiting for the CD to arrive in the mail, it knows that you've bought it, so it lets you download or stream the rest of the album in MP3 form.

    What the hell is wrong with that?

    It wasn't perfect, but it was a step in the right direction.


    ---
  • I'm checking my account right now and only 53 of my 69 albums are blocked - Dick Dale, Cinderella, Pearl Jam and Beastie Boys and a few others are still unlocked though.

    Well, I guess I gotta go back to ripping my CDs while MP3.COM manages to find a way around this damn copyright - you don't own your music, you license it from us - nonsense.
  • In order to get your account reinstated, you would need to ceertify under penalty of perjury, that you have not and will not make Metallica MP3's available.

    And I believe that you have to supply "real" contact information when you do so. So it might be easier to track you down later, if you are in violation a second time.

    Not to mention that if you are in violation a second time, you will be guilty of all the previous stuff, plus most likely perjury. And that one is definitely a biggie.
  • Metallica's list contained only the names of people that were offerring their songs on Napster. Whether or not you searched for it is irrelevant

    But Napster automatically offers your downloads to others immediately. Even if you accidently clicked on a Metallica song and canceled it right away, it could look like you have a Metallica song shared.

  • Let me take a stab in the dark of how many Dre-traders NetPD is going to find. Hmm, 317,377? Let me also guess there's going to be 60,000 hand-delivered pages?
    In any rate, the number 317,377 still looks way too much like 31337. Coincidence?
  • Go to any Gnutella download site and get the absurdly small program (http://members.xoom.com/_XMCM/nndata/gnutella_top .html). This just happens to be the first one that popped up on a major search engine, but there's lots more.

    It's not as intuituve as Napster, but in some ways it's better and it's still easy to use.

    Or try Scour, which unfortunately is pretty clunky and mainstream: http://www.scour.com/

    Or try ICQ--I've never done it but there's a way to download music through that system. There should be a great community resource through ICQ if you're willing to invest a little time & effort.

    Most of all, you're supposed to keep up the corporate fuck-you spirit of open source. I read in the NYT's yesterday that a Brit team is developing a share program a la Napster that forever cloaks your IP adr. They'll never ban you again. Search the archives in the NYT's, download it, and then email the RIAA what you've done. After they figure that one out--it will take a long time, unfortunately--maybe we can get back to our code instead of all these MP3 download workarounds.

    Good luck. ~jwa
  • I disagree. If someone steals a CD of mine, I'm not held criminially responsible for the other person stealing my CD, even if I leave it in an open window. The same should go for MP3's. Leaving an MP3 up on Napster is like leaving a CD in an open window- it's there, but I'm not saying steal it. And if you do, you break the law, not me.
  • Perhaps you are confused by the term "information superhighway". The internet is not actually a highway. The are no cars, you will not be run over and killed while surfing. Reading something on the internet will not kill you.

    Where as some one driving a rocket powered 12 ton vehicle down the freeway during rush hour would most likely kill some one. That is why highway's have regulations.

    Information does not kill. What people do with information might kill, but that is that person's responsibility and their choice to make and face the consequences. Censorship is never the right answer.
  • I normally use Gnap. A GPL'ed version of Napster for Linux. The version I have is still under development and does not allow for uploads.

    I use Windows as well (I can't get Half Life to run under Wine, can YOU?) and I use Napster under Windows as well. I don't download much with the Windows version, I usually leave it on after a game of Half Life before I go to sleep. I figured that since I have a cable modem it would be nice of me to offer some of my bandwith to those who want MP3's. So I leave Napster on under Windows.

    Now here is the funny part, I don't have any (direct) Metallica songs. I DO have some Apocolyptica covers of Metallica songs (four to be exact) and yup, you guessed it. I am banned.

    The really annoying thing here is that I have a static IP and now I am going too have to change it so that I can use Napster again. (No, re-downloading and changing usernames does not work, it's IP based.)

    Wow, banned for having covers of songs. Hrmph.
    Since I know how @home assigns IP's in my area I know how to make them cycle if I want to, and I am going too do just that. I am going to set up a dedicated Napster box now. I admit that I don't much like Metallica, (even less now) but Apocolyptica is ok. I am going to keep this bandwith up dammit, just because I am pissed off now.

    I considered downloading all of Metallica's music so I can add that to the dedicated Napster box, but then, I don't want to help in distributing crap over the internet now do I?

  • What more gain do you want than having your software used by thousands of people. Or having your music listened by thousands. I'm not saying it's easy, and we all need to change the way we think. Of course you'll get gain! If you do something that people want, I can assure you you'll receive a lot.
  • > But his lackeys had better check the content because although the title reads "dr dre - fuck you" (which is one of one of his actual titles) the content is really Kermit the Frog singing about the difficulties of being green. So I'm absolutely not violating his copyright, but unless he checks the content he'll falsely accuse me. What fun!

    ...although you are instead now guilty of violating Kermit the Frog's copyright...
  • did you make a new user?
  • Which is the exact key with the username? I keep deleting hte entire registry entry to no avail.
  • The folder I kept my Metallica MP3s in wasn't even shared in Napster and I haven't downloaded a Metallica MP3 in months. This makes me wonder how they found out these 300,000 some users had these MP3s.
  • Actually, I HAVE some Apocolyptica, but I did not feel like ripping it.

    Its faster to download than it is to rip it.
    So, now I get banned by Metallica for having Apocolyptica songs.....
  • According to the article, Napster removed 317,337 users. Doesn't this strike anyone as just a little...odd? I mean, if you remove the first 7 and the comma, you have the "d00dsp33k" word "31337".

    So perhaps Napster was trying to send a hidden message...they weren't just removing users, they were removing "eleet" users.

    Something to think about, anyway.
    --

  • I cannot believe that you are serious in this proposal. Ban people under 21 or 18, etc from the internet?

    That would be undermining everything that the internet has come to represent: freedom of speech, and choice. The internet is currently one of the ONLY public forums in which ANYONE can publish their thoughts and beliefs.

    I would like to state that I am under 18, and not only find your comment insulting, but also severly deprived of intelligence. If you enjoy using free software, such as linux, you are more than a little likely to be using software written by someone under 18. I have contributed to several free software projects, by providing bug reports, and the odd bit of code. By destroying my access to the internet, you would also destroy any feedback I could give to projects such as Mozilla.

    What makes you think that just because people are under 21 they are more likely to download illegal mp3s? I have NEVER downloaded an illegal mp3. Indeed, most of the people I know trafficing mp3s are 21-25 year-old college students.

    Should we ban chemistry chemistry so students can't learn how to mix explosives with common chemicals? Physics because students could possibly design and build a potato gun? Are you naive enough to believe that just because someone is young, they can't learn "dangerous information" on their own?

    Why require people to take exams to get on the internet? What type of exam would you give? A standard IQ exam? A test in English language? Math? Science? Decorum? If you are not sure enough in your own beliefs to tolerate those with others, YOU should be the one reexamining yourself.

    When it comes to mp3s, I know of several groups supporting napster. Offspring [offspring.com] comes to mind, who recently in an interview gave their opinion that they, "Like to have more fans", and that mp3s are in a strange way helping.

  • MP3.com Voluntarily Disables Major Label Content From My.MP3.com

    Dear My.MP3.com member,

    As you may already be aware, MP3.com has been engaged in an ongoing legal process with the five major record labels in regard to their recordings stored in My.MP3.com. While we have been working to settle these matters with the labels, MP3.com has voluntarily agreed to disable their content in the My.MP3.com database while negotiations continue apace. As a result, you will, at this time, be unable to access the major labels' content through your My.MP3.com account. We will continue our efforts to restore your music as soon as possible, and we hope that you will continue to enjoy the remainder of the My.MP3.com content, including all indie label content, the more than 350 albums in the Classical Music Channel and the 400,000-plus songs available to you for free on MP3.com.

    Michael Robertson
    Chairman & Chief Executive Officer

    For more information, go to:
    http://click.mp3.com/c/c_cNaa/n_783173713/u_sile nce

    Go directly to My.MP3.com:
    http://click.mp3.com/c/c_cNab/n_783173713/u_my

  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • Ok, so it's almost off-topic. Leave me be.

    For those of you wanting a car MP3 player but don't want a big machine with an FM transmitter or the, albeit cool, EMPEG for $1500 or so, Aiwa is making a car cd player that will play MP3 cds. I don't know of a price or release date, just thoght some people might like to know.

    I'm a 21st century digital boy.
    I don't know how to read, but I got a lot of toys.

  • the curveball (Score:3)

    by geekpress ( 171549 ) on Thursday May 11, 2000 @06:14AM (#1078420) Homepage
    According to an article in Salon [salon.com] the Metallica fans kicked off of Napster have some interesting recourse with the DMCA.

    The article says:

    "Under the terms of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, if an Internet service provider receives a complaint about a user who is allegedly violating a copyright, the ISP is supposed to immediately remove that user from its service. But if that user thinks he has been misidentified and submits a legal counternotification, then the copyright holder has 10 days to decide whether to take legal action. If the copyright holder doesn't initiate legal action against the user, the ISP must reinstate the user.

    "Now, Napster, identifying with the ISPs, is using this law to force Metallica to take up its piracy concerns with individual Napster users. On a page on its Web site, Napster explains this. "The Napster software will direct all users barred as a result of Metallica's allegations to an infringement notification page. That page explains the notice that Metallica has given us, explains who Metallica has stated to us it intends to block, and gives the user an opportunity to submit a counter notification if the user has been misidentified. If the user has been misidentified, and requests to be reinstated by submitting a counter notification under penalty of perjury, then, unless Metallica chooses to pursue legal action against that user within 10 working days of being notified of that user's counter notification, the user is entitled to be reinstated."

    ***

    So, what would happen if all those Metallica fans who own all the CDs for the MP3's they were trading stepped forward and gave counternotification?

    Would Metallica have a legal leg to stand on?

    -- Diana Hsieh

  • Comment removed (Score:5)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Thursday May 11, 2000 @06:14AM (#1078421)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • I wonder if Metallica and Dr. Dre are aware that a great deal of the people that have been banned or will be banned can and will create a new Napster account after unsharing these bands mp3's. It seems like through the whole thing Metallica at least has been ignorant to how Napster actually works.

  • Seattle concert (Score:4)

    by adpowers ( 153922 ) on Thursday May 11, 2000 @06:15AM (#1078423)
    Both Metallica and Dr. Dre are coming to do a concert in Seattle. They will appear in the same concert celebrating the opening of the Experience Music Project. Sounds like a good opertunity to say what I think of there little napster stunt. Muhahahahahahaha. First, though, I must get my anti-RIAA stickers from thinkgeek.
  • First of all, I could understand smaller bands sueing napster, because they may very well be taking money from a band that has very little if no following to begin with. However Selloutica, and Dr. Dre are QUITE established and have money to wipe their asses with thousand dollar bills! They are the last people who should be worring about losing money! Especially when the majority of the public doesn't even know what an mp3 is. CD sales have been astronomical over the past year, and yet they still complain!
    As for banning users, boohoo! So now I just have to take 5 minutes to use a proxy and get a new username. They just don't get it.

  • MP3.com over-silencing itself? (Score:3)

    by ian stevens ( 5465 ) on Thursday May 11, 2000 @06:16AM (#1078425) Homepage
    I went into my.mp3.com today and noticed that *all* of my CDs have been silenced while only a few have a "locked" icon next to them. Playing any track gives me a voice recording saying the track has been silenced, even though many of my CDs are not from nor distributed by major labels.

    No doubt MP3.com just went and silenced every beamed CD to cover their asses. If you have some CDs on your account which you *know for sure* are not in any way from major labels then you might want to e-mail them to give attention to the error.

    ian.
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • Artists need to protect their livelihoods (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Yet again I'm sure we'll see the ugly head of double standards raise itself up on this particular public forum, as /. readers try and defend their right to pirate other people's hard work, but complain bitterly when a company accidentally forgets to include five lines of GPLed code in their distribution.

    Artists have to make a living off of their work, and they're unable to do this if every 16 year-old and "hacker" on the net can download their songs for free. The record companies that represent them and their interests are of course going to demand that services like my.mp3.com and Napster remove their songs from their services, and they are right to do so.

    Anyone arguing otherwise is simply kidding themselves with specious arguments like "information wants to be free". We don't live in some Communist utopia where everything is part of public property, no matter how much gurus like RMS would like. Whilst we live in a capitalist society downloading music from the net without paying for it is a crime that hurts artists, and people should pay the appropriate penalty for it.

    If the net wasn't so "open" as it is nowadays this wouldn't be nearly so much of a problem. Since anyone can now access the net we are seeing all kinds of criminal behaviour. In the past, when the web was young, the only people using it were scientists and academics, and the signal to noise ratio was extremely high. Then, services like CompuServe and AOL began, allowing everyone to access the net for a price that was easily affordable. Since then, the net has done nothing but go downhill.

    What is the solution to this problem? IMHO, the open access to the net is the root cause of the problem, and the solution is to stop letting everyone access the web. There are two ways this should be implemented. Firstly, anyone under the age of 18 (or 16 or 21) should not be allowed on the web at all. Until they are adults, they cannot be trusted to handle the large amounts of dangerous information which the web can provide to them, and during this vulnerable stage in their life they can be swayed by rhetoric and promises. Doing this will immeadiately stop almost all of the crime on, since if only repsonsible adults can use the net they will be wise enough to not commit criminal acts.

    Secondly, access to the web should be dependent on some kind of examination process, whereby people who want to use the web have to take a test to determine their suitability. In this way we can weed out the undesirables from the net and make sure that the content on it is of uniformely high quality. Rather than having sites dedicated to racist hate, terrorist manifestos and anti-Christian diatribes we can have decent sites which educate and enlighten readers, like we had before open access.

    Now, I know these comments will offend some /.ers, but try to look beyond your liberal hand-waving for a minute and think about these proposals. The net is becoming a cesspool and a haven for criminals, and this is the only way to clean it up.

  • WTF??!?! (Score:3)

    by zonker ( 1158 ) on Thursday May 11, 2000 @06:28AM (#1078428) Homepage Journal
    I am not a fan of metallica or dr. dre, I have never searched for them, or downloaded their music. I do however use Napster, and I have a cable modem. I have found that I am banned from the Napster network. Well, my IP has been banned. My roommate however has looked up Metallica shit. So now, he has screwed me over because we share the same IP. So what am I supposed to do now? I listen to a lot of obscure music that is rather hard to find. I have found that their are a lot of other users that have similar interests. Metallica isn't it (so fuck off Lars!). Now what am I supposed to do?

    Where the hell is the EFF when you need them?

    / k.d / earth trickle / Monkeys vs. Robots Films [homepage.com] /

  • Actually people have to realise its not your music, its the muscians music.

    First of all, your whole argument is based on the premise that "intellectual property" has some meaning. Under the current legal system, it does... but some of us hope to alter or eradicate that definition.

    Second, most musicians who have signed record contracts do not own their music. The record companies do. Musicians aren't even allowed to give away copies of the music they wrote if the want to! (Quite a few have tried -- the record companies made them stop.)

  • You can't be serious. Test people to see if they are suitable to access the net? Who would decide who is suitable. You? what if I don't like your requirements. We happen to live in free society, where all speech is supposed to be allowed, whether it be anti christian diatribes, or coporate indignation over copyright infringement. If you don't like whats on the net don't read it.
    As for MP3's free distibution of them on the net is not robbing artists of their lively hood. If anything it is increaseing it. People who down load mps3's and like the music are going to support the band by attending concerts, buying merchandise, and even purchasing cd's. Admittedly this may mean a change in the business model for the industry, but as far as I'm concerned any band that doesn't like it can stop producing music.
  • So how many CD's have you bought from mp3.com?

    The average mp3.com artists has sold one cd....

    Seriously though - the cd's on demand business was seen elsewhere before mp3.com.

    I guess the one original thing they did do was the ability to listen to a CD you've bought while it's in transit.

    Maybe I just don't like the way that Michael Robertson put journalists on the mp3.com spam list whenver they mail him... Desperate or what?

  • I am (Napster username: Neuracnu_Coyote) one of the over 300,000 users who have been banned from Napster's network for supposedly propagating pirated MP3s of Metallica songs. As mentioned in a previous feedback article [slashdot.org], Metallica and NetPD claim that the list they have produced is 99% accurate, admitting that they inadvertently included some 3000 innocent users in their list of offenders. I am also one of these 3000 users.

    I don't have the bandwidth to handle all the requests I would get from Napster, so I do what most people do - I make my shared directory an empty directory and, when a file gets downloaded, I move it out of there and refresh my file library to make sure there's nothing in there for people to download. I NEVER SERVE FILES.

    How, then, can Napster and Metallica claim that I have, and say that they have caught me in the act? Where is this proof? May I see it? Is a federal judge just goint to take NetPD's word for it that I pirated music?

    And that reminds me, when exactly did this ban go into effect? I read about it on Slashdot, then immediately started up Napster to see if people were still trading Metallica songs. I was able to log in and found that, yes, they were. I got a good chuckle out of this and shut down the client. Last night, I started the client to find that I had been banned! It also said that I should visit their Counter Notification page [napster.com] (http://infringe.napster.com/metallica.html) in order to protest my ban. I'm having a lawyer friend of mine go over this to make sure that my signing it will not set into motion a whole set of legal shenanigans only to end with me getting spanked with a charge of perjury.

    But now, I should get back to the subject of the message. I went into the registry and removed my user information before uninstalling and reinstalling the software. I tried to get it to create a new user, but after going through the signup process, I got the same message that my account, for the new username, had been banned - they must be doing it by IP address as well as usernames.

    In the meantime, banned (windows) Napster users can download Napigator [napigator.com], a client that allows you to navigate through official Napster servers as well as OpenNap and other unofficial Napster servers and connect to those without bother from Metallica's musical meddling. Either that, or Gnutella, IRC, ICQ or any of the other genies that have popped out of the bottle.

  • ... when everyone's has the bandwidth to listen to songs on remote systems without copying them to their hard drive? Would that still be "copyright infringement"?
  • Those people who trade are really just in the promotion business, and although their acts are illegal, they are not earth-shattering to the avaricious companies that sell recordings. I would wager that by putting more music in the hands of more people, they are unknowingly and pragmatically supporting the industry that hates them.

    I'm getting pretty tired of this arguement for mp3s.

    First of all, how can you show that mp3 promotion through rampant copying will be beneficial to the industry. I remember earlier comments about how open source will benefit the industry and generate huge profits due to support and modifications to the source. Well, guess what, Linux has 25% of the server market and less than 1% of the revenues. Linuxcare is cutting back and all Linux stocks are down considerably (even more than the NASDAQ index). I'm not against Linux, because Linux competes fairly against other OSes. People choose Linux, it's not forced on them. In the case of Napster, you are forcing the record companies into using it.

    Secondly, even if free mp3 distribution is a better business model, it should be the choice of the record companies to take this business risk. In Toronto, the National Post is giving away newspapers to drum up business. I'm pretty sure they would not be happy if you broken into their displays and took newspapers to be given away freely! And copying music dilutes the economic vlaue of it.

  • Just head over to your local Undernet or DALnet IRC server..... there are enough rooms with people sharing and swapping MP3 to make your head spin... Far more then there are on Napster, I'd wager...

  • I went into the registry and removed my user information before uninstalling and reinstalling the software. I got the same message that my account, for the new username, had been banned - they must be doing it by IP address as well as usernames.

    I cleaned the registry after removing the program - installed it - registered a new nick - and was able to connect to their server without a problem. They're not banning by IP address. I would guess that most of the clients have dynamic IP addresses that change each time they dial in to their ISP.


    --

  • You can't be serious. Test people to see if they are suitable to access the net? Who would decide who is suitable. You? what if I don't like your requirements. We happen to live in free society, where all speech is supposed to be allowed, whether it be anti christian diatribes, or coporate indignation over copyright infringement. If you don't like whats on the net don't read it.

    Well, i see someone else broughtup the comparison to driving... But one could be made about haiving kids... like it can happen by accident to anyone in the world, but if a couple decides they want to adopt, they have to withstand a barrage of paperwork , questions, etc, as they prove that they are fit to be parents.

    As for MP3's free distibution of them on the net is not robbing artists of their lively hood. If anything it is increaseing it.

    How can taking something that was once sold and depended on for income and giving it way for free stand the chance of increasing their livilehoods? I'm completely stumped on that one.

    Oh, it's because People who down load mps3's and like the music are going to support the band by attending concerts, buying merchandise, and even purchasing cd's.

    Touring costs money for a band... some bands live only in the studio... some bands are just too old to handle a prolonged tour, so they play mostly the studio and the occassional show... As far as merchandising goes... i'm a fan of quite a few bands, but i've only ever purchased their CD's and records... okay, no. I've bought one tshirt and one poster. Hmmmm... what works out better for the artists? someone buying their CD, or 1 in 20 people that would have bought their CD buying their shirt?

    Admittedly this may mean a change in the business model for the industry, but as far as I'm concerned any band that doesn't like it can stop producing music.

    And are you an economics major? Yeah... the business model needs a revamping... but what napster doing is stamping out the artists as well as the labels... labels do serve some purposes, most notably for the fans, paying the artists and fronting them money to do nifty stuff like make CD's, buy studio time, put on tours, etc... How are they going to be able to do that stuff in your world?
  • So.. you were violating copyright law by distributing material (apocalyptica) that you had no legal right to do so, and also violating the napster usage agreement (that requries you to not use napster to traffic in copyrighted works), and you were banned....
    And now you are mad?

    Certainly, the reason you were banned (for sharing metallica) may be incorrect, but you are still violating the law in a blatant and outright fashion.
  • Don't you think that if they were aiming for banner impressions they would have put out 2 articles (one on mp3.com and one on Napster) instead of combining the two? This would have doubled the number of times the banners get shown.

  • Re:the curveball (Score:3)

    by ToLu the Happy Furby ( 63586 ) on Thursday May 11, 2000 @01:10PM (#1078440)
    So, what would happen if all those Metallica fans who own all the CDs for the MP3's they were trading stepped forward and gave counternotification?

    This seems to be a common misconception about what Metallica did. They didn't ask for all the people who downloaded their music to be banned, but rather for all the people who were offering their music for download to be banned. In most cases, it's the same thing, since by default Napster shares the directory where it saves your downloads, but the two are very different in principle.

    Even if you own the CD, you're not the copyright holder; under current copyright law, you're still infringing by making it available on Napster. The reason to make a counterclaim is that Metallica did not listen to the songs all 300,000-something people were sharing; rather, all the vaunted NetPD hackers did was write a bot (in contradiction with Napster's TOS, by the way) which searched for "Metallica" every couple of minutes, and left it connected to all the Napster servers for a weekend. Thus, anyone sharing an mp3 with the word "Metallica" in it got banned.

    Now, I don't have to tell you that a lot of those mp3s weren't copyright infringing. For one thing, they would include plenty of concert bootlegs--which Metallica claims to encourage, by the way; whether they're still the copyright holders is a more difficult question. More obviously non-infringing would be things like "My band covering Master of Puppets by Metallica.mp3", or "Why Metallica sucks donkey balls--an oral essay spoken into my computer's 30-cent microphone.mp3" From what I've heard there may be many users on the list who were banned for providing exactly such content. Furthermore, Metallica compiled this list a couple weeks after they announced their suit; it's therefore quite likely that a bunch of people renamed files so as to look like Metallica files and shared them just for this reason.

    For what reason you may ask? Well, in order to file a complaint under the DMCA to have something removed from a hosted server for copyright violations, you have to assert under penalty of perjury that it actually violates your copyright. In other words, if Metallica got you banned without first checking if the songs you shared were actually ones they had the copyright to, they are guilty of perjury. And from all indications, they did exactly that. Whether DMCA allows them to be fined for that, I dunno. (I'm assuming they won't get any jail time, although even assuming 99% of the files on Napster with Metallica in the file name are illegal, that leaves 3171 counts of perjury!) It sure as hell ought to, though.

    On a final note, it'd be pretty awesome if everyone on the list filed a counterclaim, forcing Metallica to listen to all 317,000 of those songs. Of course, I happen to know that won't occur, since I decided to switch to Napigator [napigator.com] instead. ;-)
  • Some people really fail to spot sarcasm unless they really concentrate.
    > The internet is not actually a highway.
    Duh.

    Apparently you didn't concentrate enough.
  • Of course, it's here [nytimes.com].
  • "No room for poor people on the web anymore"

    And there's tonnes of them on already?

    If you don't think the web is at least half as exclusive as you're pretending it should be then you're mistaken.

    The World Wide Web is poorly named. It should be called the First World Web.
  • You are right I'm no expert in economics. But I personally don't beleive that mp3's are going to impact CD sales. I have noticed that Linux distributors such as Red Hat appear to make money selling a product that is freely downloadable. Why shouldn't the music industry be able to as well. Time will tell because it appears mp3 or some other form of encoding is here to stay.

  • Which is the exact key with the username? I keep deleting hte entire registry entry to no avail.

    Someone, in another feedback article [slashdot.org], in a thread moderated far far higher than the one in which we speak, posted the exact process one goes through in order to work around the ban. Give it a shot - it worked for me.

    Thank you, good day.

  • Since you're under eighteen, I'll dispense this friendly advice without my usual tirade of profanity. The key to understading is in your very first sentence -- "I cannot believe that you are serious in this proposal. "

    If you "cannot believe" something, it is often a very good course of action to not believe it. Follow this course of action through your life and you will end up both believing a lot less shit, and having less of your time wasted by people like me.

  • Just download an early 2.0 release of Napster from zdnet.com, it doesn't have any of the banning code. Worked for me after a few uninstalls.
  • My friend was banned from Napster for allegedly trading Metallica mp3s, he just deleted all his settings and set up a new account. He is back on now. For the record, he didn't even have any metallica mp3s!!! he doesn't even like heavy metal! NetPD screwed up big time.

  • The grim, dark history of MP3 (Score:4)

    by lbrlove ( 164167 ) on Thursday May 11, 2000 @06:28AM (#1078449)
    Rome fell, not because of barbarian hoards, but because of the MP3s these uncivilized men listened to...

    When the Titanic went down, the last thing heard was the bubbly drowning of the captain's MP3s playing...

    When Hitler was in art school in the 1920's, he heard music in MP3 format, and the rest is history...

    Based on everything you read nowadays, I have to believe that the MP3 technology is the proverbial anti-christ, and all because it keeps the members of Metallica from buying more houses. Why did the RIAA not resist the incursion of CD-Rs? These have had the potential for years of costing them huge money. Why do they not resist tape players having a "record" button? That is the easiest way to reproduce music.

    I think the whole MP3 thing just shows how afraid people are of computer technology. Because it is on a computer, it must be a more insidious evil. I agree that it is easier to trade files on Napster than to trade Grateful Dead tapes by hand, but the human networks will never really threaten the bands in the way true pirates do.

    Those people who mass-produce CDs in rickety Singapore warehouses are the people who really poach from the music industry, and they sell the product, creating a zero-sum loss of revenues for the recording industry. Those people who trade are really just in the promotion business, and although their acts are illegal, they are not earth-shattering to the avaricious companies that sell recordings. I would wager that by putting more music in the hands of more people, they are unknowingly and pragmatically supporting the industry that hates them.

    Am I trying to make excuses for lawbreakers? No, not really, but sometimes the economic reality is in no way representative of the motivations. Capitalism is theoretically based on the idea that people are self-motivated, and American capitalism relies on people being downright hedonistic. Get a clue and ride the wave, RIAA!

    -L
  • Kenwood already has one for $650...plays standard cd's as well as cd-rs with mp3s burned on em...dunno if they support cdrws though.
  • Actually people have to realise its not your music, its the muscians music. They're letting you listen to it.

    As to your right to listen to it in any form you wish, that is what needs to be fought for.

  • Napster using DMCA to evade Metallica (Score:5)

    by ardran ( 90992 ) on Thursday May 11, 2000 @07:19AM (#1078452)
    This article at Salon [salon.com] summarizing this message from Napster [napster.com] -- Napster is using DMCA as a defense! Users who were fingered by Metallica are allowed under DMCA (assuming, that is, you count napster as an ISP) to submit a counternotification is they think they were incorrectly identified as copyright infringers. Unless Metallica pursues legal action against those individuals within ten days of the receipt of the counternotification, Napster must reinstate them!
  • The following text is something I was writing to someone as a critique, but I wanted to post it in this forum as well. It's basically about something I as well as others have been guilty of. I haven't been acknowleging the affect of free distribution on the artists in my posts, although they have been on my mind. Anyway, here's the snippet:

    This is where the biggest issue, in my opinion, comes into play. And this is where
    the RIAA will do the greatest evil. What they're doing is playing on the whole
    conflict between our freedom to distribute media over the Internet and their right
    to control distribution. You can't have one without taking away from the other. For
    example, having Napster blocked from campuses is in fact a way that the RIAA took
    away our freedom to distribute and gained back some control of music distribution.
    If anyone thinks they'll stop with Napster, my guess is they are wrong. The big
    problem is that the more control the RIAA has over distribution, the harder it
    becomes for us to do our own promotion and distribution of music. Napster was a
    great distribution channel for independent artists. Indie music is bigger on
    college campuses than anywhere--and now it just got a little harder for us to
    get in there. We know that the distribution of MP3's has been making the recording
    industry money because it helps them promote their music. The problem is that as
    MP3 distribution becomes more popular people will learn how to promote and
    distribute music leaving the RIAA out of the picture. When this happens they're
    going to be hurting. They'll do everything they can to close down distribution
    channels that create an even playing field. Let's face it, it's their job to
    control the distribution of media. They're not going to give a shit about freedom
    and independent artists--other than the fact that it will infringe on their profits.
    If they get in the way they'll stop it. You don't have to look far to find
    historical and anecdotal evidence of how much they really care about artists. I
    think we're falling into a trap here though. We sound just as bad as the RIAA
    because we're neglecting the artists point of view. I think this is mainly
    because we've seen it as a moot point. The artists that are against free
    distribution don't understand that it can't be stopped or they understand
    that their music isn't good enough that people will pay them for it unless
    they're promoted by a major label. I really think it's important to work on
    winning them over to free distribution. I believe the artists with talent will
    stand a better chance of making money through free distribution than through
    a big label. Yeah, some will get picked up by major labels and make obscene
    amounts of money, but most will go unnoticed without free distribution. These
    are the guys that need us, and we need them.

    numb

  • Metallicster (Score:5)

    by mischief ( 6270 ) on Thursday May 11, 2000 @07:31AM (#1078454) Homepage Journal
    A colleague pointed me to this article [theregister.co.uk] on The Register - looks like there's now a napster clone specifically for finding Metallica music! Check it out: http://metallicster.freeservers.com/ [freeservers.com].

    --
  • UGH, For the sake of the benjaminz (e.g. the fact that napster articles always get 300+ comments which means numerous banner views) slashdot is selling out the open source community. If the idea of open source wants to remain viable I would recommend those in the community to severe relations with this site ASAP. Napster is forcing other people to give away their work. Is this the type of behavior that the O.S. movement want to be associated with? FORCED ACCEPTANCE OF OTHERS IDEALS! That is essentially what they are doing. They are saying we don't like the way you deal with yoru ideas, so we are going to change it for you. Forget giving people a choice or convincing others on the strength of one's position, just force them! Give me a damn break! "Libertarian" -- yea right! I'm not going to rant on why napster is unethical because others have done it a billiont imes before, but I haven't seen the issue of association brought up before. I hope the editors will consider this before they make their next napster post.

  • Anyone else notice... (Score:3)

    by PDHoss ( 141657 ) on Thursday May 11, 2000 @07:33AM (#1078457)
    that the two most noteworthy names going after Napster really had their heyday quite some time ago? Metallica: it's been a pretty steady slide since the black album. Dr. Dre: Much love for The Chronic circa 1992, but lately, he's been pretty bland.

    Just a thought... probably redundant.

    PDHoss
    ======================================
  • This is how you unban yourself from Napster beta 6

    1. You'll probably need to create a new account, so click on Start, Run, type in regedit.

    2. Navigate to this key: HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\software\Napster. On the right side of the window after you click on the Napster folder, delete the key that says "CurrentUser". Also delete any folders below the Napster folder. (i.e. click on the plus sign and remove all those folders that have usernames.)

    3. Now do a search (ctl-f) for these things one at a time:
    35D38C13-1434-AB7E-003483943341AA
    A1AD8C13-1383-5343-DCC38E43FF0AAE
    CAD8C813-1F34-1B3E-00CEAE43FF0AAD

    Delete every instance that you find of these keys. Hit F3 to continue searching. There are about 3 or 4 instances of each of these keys.

    4. Reboot your system. (just in case.)
    Thanks Cryptic

  • Apparantly, they are aware of this problem:


    --
    Date: Thu, 11 May 2000 11:52:38 -0700
    From: beamitsupport@mp3.com
    Subject: The following CDs have been silenced but are not from major labels [#242062]

    Dear ian stevens,

    Thank you for bringing this to our attention. We are aware of the situation and our engineering staff is working on resolving the problem. Please try to access the feature at a later time.

    Regards,
    MP3.com Customer Service
    --


    ian.
  • First of all, let me agree with you, artists do need to protect their livelihood. Of course, its my opinion that artists will continue to have a livelihood in one way or another as long as there is an interest in their service. And if they want to do something like sue every napster uses who downloads their product, thats their right. I don't think its their right to ban napster (as my university is considering) because napster isn't breaking the law. Certianly it enables other people to break the law, and perhaps its not "fair" that it is more difficult to prosecute 300,000 users rather than one central service, but corparations have been engaging in "unfair" pratices that comply with the letter of the law for years.

    As for the part about restricting the internet, I really think that is a bad idea. First of all, I think you underestimate young people. Yes, perhaps they are more easily swayed by information that you or I (or course I'm only 20, so perhaps I am too easily swayed), but the way to help them make correct decision when faced with "rhetoric and promises" is to educate and guide them, not restrict them.

    And I seriously doubt the effectiveness of an examination for access to the web. It would require some kind of agency give the exam, which presumably would be government. But whose government? And even if it were enacted, would it really reduce crime? I had to take an exam to get my driver's license, but there are convicted drunk drivers who get into cars everyday.

    Finally I'd like to refue the claim that "The net is becoming a cesspool and a haven for criminals," Of course there is more crime on the net, but also many more people. The net is used every day by responsible people. It allows freedom, and more importantly it allows choice. If you want the net to be a cesspool, I'm sure there are plenty of sites that will back up your claim. But I've never been to them, and you don't have to go to them either. If you want my solution to you "problem," I would suggest you create your own network. Issue your exam before allowing people to join your network. If your right and people do want the net cleaned up, it shouldn't be difficult to find people to join. Personally I'll be happy to never visit.

  • I agree (Score:1)

    by ODiV ( 51631 )
    I think there should definately be some restraints on access to the web. /.ers have said themselves that filter programs do not work and are therefore innefectual at protecting our children from pornography, foul language, and other tasteless forms of expression. Excluding children and the people who publish such smut from the web is a great idea.

    Now that I think about it, it's not only the web that's the problem, it's society. How about membership in our society be dependent on some sort of examination process? We can throw everyone else out or sterilize them or something. I mean we always say that everyone should have rights, but honestly, can we trust a hateful person with such rights?
  • I must say that I am not sure where Interscope falls in the realm of labels, but I've heard of Dr. Dre and Metallica referred to as label mates of Limp Bizkit. Now Limp Bizkit's lead singer is Fred Durst, a Vice President of Interscope Records. If these guys are so adamant about shutting down Napster, how exactly is it that someone of any standing in the company, namely Durst is doing summer concerts funded by Napster? I can believe that Mr. Durst isn't a very powerful VP. He's probably more in charge of signing new bands and those kinds of deals that the company's monetary welfare.

    This feels rather peculiar, more corporate doublespeak? Or am I wrong about the labelmate status of Bizkit, Dre, and Metallica?

    Now I have a question that might be a bit off-topic, but please bear with me:
    If someone broadcasts their MP3 collection, and you listen to the stream and record it, are you legally allowed to have that MP3? I guess the two sides of this argument are really ... It's legal to have, but you can only use it for personal use, or It's illegal since the person initiating the stream was only supposed to be using it for personal use.

  • I understand that musicians may have an objection to having their music freely distributed, no matter how silly it seems to me, but it is beginning to drive me crazy how people keep referring to the legality of MP3s. MP3 is a fucking audio compression format; commercial music isn't the only bloody material being compressed. Yet the recording industry keeps labeling pirated music as "MP3s", which is beginning to give the format a very bad name, when the format is amazingly useful. Game developers, for instance, can use MP3 compression to pack tons more sounds into a program to create a much richer audio experience for the users in the same amount of space comsumed by those gaudy WAV files. MP3 is a wonderful format with many versitile uses, but the corporate spin doctors are using the term MP3 as if it were a violation of the law rather than a useful tool! I would truly hate to see the a highly useful compression format legislated because of the manipulation of an ignorant legal system by the deep pockets of Corporate America (not that similar situations don't occur daily...).

    While I am ranting, I would like to take a moment to express how utterly ridiculous their methods of collecting "offenders" was. Many people maintain our MP3s in a single directory, myself included. When I installed Napster, I didn't give too much thought to the configuration options, I did notice that there were two directory boxes listed for MP3, so I just changed them both (which happen to default to the same directory in the first place) to my MP3 directory. Now, I do have some commercial songs in MP3 format in that directory, which I ripped from my own CDs; no Metallica, thank goodness, so I haven't been banned. But if I had some Metallica MP3s in that directory and had connected to Napster, I would have been banned, not for attempting to distribute pirated music, but from the simple desire to keep all of my crap in one place. Of course, since learning that one of the directories in the preferences is a shared directory, I have changed that directory to an empty folder (I'm on a dialup, can't spare the bandwidth to be running a bloody server). So it seems pretty wacky to me that they would presume that based on the fact that someone keeps their MP3 files in a single folder that they are attempting to distribute them; I sure as hell didn't want to share mine! DMCA my ass; methinks that Metallica and NetPD are setting themselves up for a pretty nasty harassment suit, or whatever law applies to this situation. But of course IANAL, just a pissed off dude who could have lost access to a fine service because someone wanted to interpret my laziness for criminal behavior.

    Deosyne
  • I got banned from Napster and am having trouble getting a new ID. Here is what I've tried:
    Metallicasucks
    Metallicasux
    Metallicablows
    .
    .
    .
    .
    IHateMetallica

    I don't get it. It says that all these ID's are already in use... :P

  • So this is where Law is going:

    "Do you swear to tell the Truth and nothing but the Truth?"

    I DO (SUBMIT-button)

    - Steeltoe
  • Just for the record, Redhat's lost several million dollars selling something that's free in the past few quarters... Whereas the labels pay everyone involved with the creation of a CD, Redhat pays only it's staffers, who, by themselves, create a very minimal part of the Redhat Linux distribution. They're also moving away from a model of selling the boxed software to a software support model. That can work for software, but not for music. It's not like you can sell a support contract for the CD you just released.
  • Demo tapes with titles like "Lars Sucks Ass?"

    Or "Metallica Ate My Napster [mp3.com]".

    (It's in MP3 too...)
  • Yeah, it is a good quote. Wish I could take credit for it. I heard about calling the World Wide Web the First World Web through my Multimedia prof. I don't know if she coined the term or heard it somewhere.

    Now we just need to get people to start their sites with fww :)
  • Open notepad and put in all this info
    REGEDIT4

    [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\CLASSES\CLSID\{CAD8 C813-1F34-1B3E-00CEAE43FF0AAD}]
    "id"="zzzzzzzzzzz74324"

    [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\Napster]
    "CurrentUser"=""

    then save it as a .reg; run it.
  • I wish you people would read one of these articles before posting. As has been stated repeatedly, Metallica's list contained only the names of people that were offerring their songs on Napster. Whether or not you searched for it is irrelevant. On the other hand, if your roommate had Metallica available for download, then he did screw you.

    Once more, for the hopelessly dense - only people that made Metallica songs available for download are on the list.

    Thank you, drive through

    OT: I'm now waiting 70 seconds because I somehow hit the lameness filter for caps, for using one freakin word in all caps. The trolls are right....the lameness filter is lame.

  • I want to get one of those and cruise down the road blasting Dr. Dre songs I haven't paid for.
  • forgot to say...
    you can order em through Crutchfield [crutchfield.com]...it's where I saw em. The units page is here [crutchfield.com].


  • 10) The record companies are ripping off artists,
    9) the artists that don't get ripped off are too rich,
    8) any CD played on a Linux system somewhere in the world is liscensed under GPL,
    7) that song sucks, it's not worth paying for (but still worth listening to),
    6) The only place I can steal from artists that haven't got that major label deal yet.
    5) The Constitution is way out of date, copyright / ip serves no purpose in today's world,
    4) Banning it violates my Constitutional right to free speech!
    3) Go after the real culprits. I didn't steal Metallica's studio masters, I just redistributed them.
    2) The genies out of the bottle! You can't stop technology (or rape or murder), anyone who tries is stupid. Who cares about right or wrong?
    1) 'cause Jon Katz said so.

Slashdot Top Deals

It is easier to write an incorrect program than understand a correct one.

Close