Preview the New Napster 390
*ZiggyP0P* writes "Napster has finally released a preview/teaser of their new business model. Seems kind of sad that so much work will be done on something that noone will use. Quite interesting the part about their own file format..."
Farking link? (Score:5, Informative)
Is there a reason why the link to Napster is going through fark.com?? They don't appear to have anything to do with Napster...
Re:Farking link? (Score:2, Informative)
http://www.napster.com/preview/ [napster.com]
Re:Farking link? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Farking link? - Fixed! (Score:2)
Kudos to the
-
Why I'll Use It (Score:4, Offtopic)
Re:Why I'll Use It (Score:4, Insightful)
That example is obviously extreme, but think about a no-name band that's trying to get started. They log onto Napster to register their band and find that somebody else has already claimed ownership of some songs they taped at a rehearsal.
Re:Why I'll Use It (Score:5, Funny)
Jeez, I dunno... self-respect perhaps?
Re:Why I'll Use It (Score:3, Insightful)
Andrew
Re:Why I'll Use It (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why I'll Use It (Score:2, Interesting)
But that's exactly what you're doing, by hoping that nobody alters or tinkers with a file that they've bought. If I record some music by using the line-in on my sound card I'm free to convert that file to any format I want; shouldn't I be able to do that with a file that I paid for?
The only way that you could disagree is by employing the same subversive logic that those companies pushing SDMI and SCMS on us are using: the consumer is not buying the music, s/he is buying the right to listen to is. But then again, if you believed that, you might also think that Digital Rights Management [slashdot.org] is innovative.
Re:Why I'll Use It (Score:4, Insightful)
That would be a first. Courtney Love does the math [salon.com]. Sorry, but RIAA getting paid is way different from artists getting paid. (or were you being sarcastic?)
Re:Why I'll Use It (Score:3, Insightful)
Each CD has 100 points. Then those 100 points are divided up amongst everyone involved. Each point is worth a varying number of cents, depending on the cost of the CD and how much it cost to produce that one CD. Currently, I think the average CD comes out to about $9 (9 cents per point, then).
The recording artist gets 10 points, if they are very lucky. So for every record, they make potentially 90 cents.
If an artist becomes gold (500,000 CD's sold, I believe) they'll have about $450,000. Out of that $450,000 their agent will take a cut. At best, you're looking at 10%. Now the artist is down to approximately $400,000.
Now the artist has to repay the record company for the cost of the album's production, probably the cost of any video and miscellanious things such as advertising (in some cases). We'll say they got a steel on the studio recording for $20,000 and an extremely cheap $200,000 video. Now they are down to $180,000 at best.
Of this $180,000 they will have to pay for a lawyer to help with the legal end of business. Maybe they get a deal at $20,000. Now they're down to about $180,000.
Next, they have to pay taxes. On $180,000 probably near 50%. They have $90,000 left.
Assuming the record company has been lenient with them (record companies like to keep running tabs on EVERYTHING the artist causes as an expense so that they can keep the artist in their pocket) they've earned a cool $90,000 for becoming a gold record artist and selling $9,000,000 worth of albums (not counting whatever money they brought in through other means for the record companies).
Now, let's say that the artist isn't just a solo act. Let's say they're a band. They've got a drummer, a vocalist/guitar player, a bass player and a keyboard player. Now they divide that $90,000 up and have earned a cool $22,500 each.
This is how, very easily, a popular recording artist could earn less than someone pulling in minimum wage at a local fast food joint. In fact, they wouldn't even be breaking out of middle-class income unless they were selling well over 5,000,000 units per year.
Every artist, including those who *have* made it huge, will confirm this. Only the rarist exceptions become millionaire superstarts living in fat ass mansions and gold-plating every surface in their house (Madonna, Michael Jackson, Sting, Aerosmith, etc).
So I would say that the record companies are indeed a great evil. They have no interest in caring for the artist or treating them fairly. They're worse than any used car salesmen or ambulance chasers. They take someone else's talent and exploit them. And how can they do this? Because they maintain control of all of the production and distribution channels for the artist. They also keep the world in the dark-age of copyright and intellectual property abuse. If you want your music on the radio or in a store, you have to sell your soul and the rights to your music to the record companies.
Now, imagine that the artist has direct access to their listeners. Instead of taking 90 cents on a CD, they could take many times that still afford to pay their agent, lawyer, production costs and afford advertising. Further, they could maintain complete control over the ownership of their lyrics and music and even their own name.
Re:Why I'll Use It (Score:2)
Tangent-
Why does eveyone automatically assume that any level of fame automatically equates to great wealth? I've never quite understood that one.
Sad truth: artists need record companies (Score:3, Informative)
Why specifically record companies? Why not anyone who deals in someone else's intellectual property? Booksellers, publishers, librarians... all these are scum of the earth too, according to your logic.
Thing is though, your logic is flawed. You presume that the artist is the thing that deserves the most reward.
It's not actually that difficult to make a really good song. It's not even difficult to distribute it, provided it is done digitally. So how come there aren't lots of great songs going around on Morpheus that don't exist on CD?
Because what is difficult is to market a really good song. As in, publicise it, take it to the masses and actually bring in the money.
Firstly, radio station playlists don't come from a team meeting of benevolent DJs who spend their time searching out new sounds. Playlists come from record companies bombarding radio stations with publicity. Wise up, sucker. Commercial radio stations (and even the BBC) have fixed playlists controlled by marketting hype. It's only on the unprofitable grass-roots stations that have DJs who actually do any research.
Secondly, every artist who has tried to make a living (actually pay their bills, without claiming social security) SOLELY out of online trading of their IP has failed. You can only do this if you are already established, ie. have already shifted lots of coasters. Not forgetting that you need a decent way to accept payments.
So the horrid harsh reality is that ARTISTS NEED RECORD COMPANIES. Sorry, but they do. Record companies are not evil, they are actually the largest part of what makes pop music pop.
Re:Why I'll Use It (Score:2, Insightful)
She is involved in a heavy court battle [vh1.com] with the surviving members of Nirvana. Why would they do that and involve scores of well paid lawyers, if the contracts really paid artists practically nothing?
Re:Why I'll Use It (Score:3, Informative)
Hah! (Score:5, Interesting)
How is Napster going to stay legal? Will you filter out certain songs, like before?
All the music available through Napster will be legally licensed for sharing in the Napster community. When you make music available for sharing, our system will check to make sure it's licensed to Napster. We're busy getting licenses to music from copyright holders ranging from major to independent labels, so there'll be a lot of great music when we launch -- and we'll continue adding to that body of music.
(Emphasis mine)
So, once again, it looks like both the artists and the users are being screwed.
This solution Napster will be offering would be more palatable in my view if we knew the money was going DIRECTLY to the artists, rather than via the "label"...
Re:Hah! (Score:2)
Nowadays of course they exist not to make life easier for the artist (and get a cut for their troubles), but to simply get their cut and make lots of cash money.
</rant></bitch>
Re:Hah! (two words) (Score:2)
ok, that's three words...
Not the reason (Score:2)
This has nothing to do with paying artists and never did. The artist has already been paid. They may get a small cut of record sales, they more likely do not. So it's always only been about paying the record companies. Just for clarification....
Re:Hah! (Score:3, Insightful)
I know the labels do more than that, but for a small independent artist in the Internet age, the record labels are quickly becoming (or have become) obsolete. I buy all my music legitimately, but it sometimes seems kind of pointless WRT doing it to support the artists since most of the money goes to some faceless corporation that is only trying to maintain the status quo of its monopoly on distribution.
That's why I like to patronize labels like Robert Fripp's Discipline Global Mobile, which allows the artists to maintain their own copyrights. Imagine that. You struggle to make some good work, the record label helps you to publish and market it, you give them their cut, but you still own the work. I'm sure Hilary Rosen would call that communism.
Re:Hah! (Score:2, Funny)
[seriously, I think that it's truer to say it's currently the artist who gets a cut, rather than the label]
Re:Hah! (Score:2)
Except for PayPal, obviously.
Labels OR Artists... (Score:2)
Artists Get Paid [napster.com]
Napster will offer artists and labels tools to register as rights holders and get paid for sharing their music on Napster. Artists and other rights holders can set rules for how their music files are used, check their account status online, and receive quarterly statements.
Many artists are legally bound to thier labels and have no control over thier music, so most of your money will go to those labels. HOWEVER, A Label isn't required to distribute your music via new Napster, so those Artists who wish to get paid directly CAN. And those who wish to sell thier soul, can sign up with the labels...
Well for NEW music... (Score:2)
dumbass (Score:2)
Yeah, I know you're a big fan of playing "Devil's Advocate" (often, you're simply being sane, as sanity is lacking here at times), but you've got to be fucking kidding me on this one. Artists don't get paid unless/untill the labels make millions off their music.
I personally know some artists who have been on the verge of making it big for the last 4 years, every chance their labels(yes, plural, they've been all over) get they totally fuck them over. If you listen to metal much, you've probably heard them.
They're simply whores and their labels are their pimp. The labels get the money, the artists do the work and get bullied and pushed around and just generally disprespected and treated like shit. Lables are in constant violation of their already extremely label favoring contracts.
It's really one of the most ridiculous industries on this sad little planet.
note: I won't disclose the name of the band because I'm not sure what they have publicly disclosed about the trouble they've had with their labels.
Re:Why I'll Use It (Score:2)
Napster will offer artists and labels tools to register as rights holders and get paid for sharing their music on Napster. Artists and other rights holders can set rules for how their music files are used, check their account status online, and receive quarterly statements.
I'm not a lawyer but i'm pretty sure that the rights to most music is held by the big record companies. Therefore those few independant artists will actually get paid, but i'm betting the ones already signed to record labels won't see much of that subscription fee.
Re:Why I'll Use It (Score:2)
Would that be because he isn't slashdot and is therefor not paying anything for you to read his post (except the cost of the initial submission...)? Otherwise you should check your logic on that one.
Re:Why I'll Use It (Score:2)
Just what the world needs... (Score:4, Insightful)
Napster investors, Please Read! (Score:2, Funny)
I thought Napster was dead. Guess this is the death rattle for the investors sake. Sad, sad, sad. No one can seem to find out a profitable scheme of ripping off the evil Record Labels.
Nobody? (Score:5, Insightful)
Expect a PR campaign simultaneous to the release painting those who use Napster2 as hip, aware people while those who use others [gnute.com] as music pirates.
The PR campaign won't be as scary as the legislative offensive launched to outlaw music trading apps without DRM... Napster and the industry will be on the same side.
In other words, this isn't the end of Napster, not by a long shot. And I suspect that, of all the fee-based services, the one from Napster will be more forgiving than the one that MS puts out.
why use it? (Score:5, Interesting)
You mean aside from the fact that Napster is the coolest?
Seriously, we know that there will always be a lot of alternatives. Ultimately, the choice will be yours, but we feel that file sharing communities that pay copyright holders and provide simple, useful tools to help you do what you want with your digital music collection are going to prevail. We feel strongly that the value you receive from Napster will make the fee seem insignificant.
yes, the alternatives we've grown the love over the last 6 months just don't compare the the 'quality' that we could get with the satisfaction of making the RIAA much richer than it already is.
Re:why use it? (Score:2)
Of course, they don't state what the fee will be yet, and they don't know how many songs they're going to let you download. And I wouldn't be totally surprised if the RIAA is making them mail 250 lb. USB dongles that have to be attached to your computer to play the songs.
Re:why use it? (Score:3, Insightful)
.
It won't fail because it charges money (Score:5, Insightful)
Not that charging a monthly fee won't work against them, it will, but there are still a number of people who would gladly have paid a monthly fee for what napster WAS. What it has/will become is something no one wanted or asked for napster to make.
And the final problem is that by now a solid napster replacement in the form of Morpheus/Kazaa/grokster has come out. Napster waited way too long. They will always have a place in history, but they will never have a place in the future.
Re:It won't fail because it charges money (Score:5, Insightful)
(Ask me how I know.)
Re:It won't fail because it charges money (Score:2)
Re:It won't fail because it charges money (Score:2)
a) .nap files have copy protection and .ogg files in almost any (software) player, on almost any OS.
b) I can play
Re:It won't fail because it charges money (Score:2, Interesting)
It's not so much that Ogg wants to be better than mp3 or to replace it- it's just an effort to keep Fraunhofer honest so they don't pull a Unisys-style gif move and start charging users outrageous rates. If they do, there's a free alternative to fall back on.
Whether people actually are forced to fall back on that alternative is completely beside the point- there *is* an alternative nipping at their heels, looking for the slightest sign of weakness.
On the other hand, this is just the fruition of Napster the company trying to cash in their chips. The record companies called their bluff, and rather than stand on principle the Napster folks gave in to their greed. They have limited the options of people who trust them, rather than increased them.
That's why that comment gets modded down as a troll in a vorbis discussion and modded up as insightful here.
BANDWIDTH (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:BANDWIDTH (Score:2)
Why Won't Anyone Use It? (Score:5, Interesting)
Why should I spend money to get music as files that won't play on my Nomad or Archos Jukebox?
I'm all for giving the artists a cut of the subscription, or on a per-download basis, or what have you, but if it's in this "secure" format then it becomes worthless to me.
Re:Why Won't Anyone Use It? (Score:3, Interesting)
If the artists will get paid, and not the labels, I'd use it - especially if the .NAP gets hacked and I can use the music I just paid for on any system I own.
My .02 non-euro worth.
Re:Why Won't Anyone Use It? (Score:4, Interesting)
Suppose you have a private and public key. When you download a .NAP, it's encrypted by the client on the other end with your public key. The only box that can decrypt the .NAP is yours, as only your box has the private key.
Assuming this is the implementation, in order to crack .NAP, you'd need a mechanism of sending your private key along with any .NAP file you send to another user.
Since it's a closed-source client, and since the primary use of a hack to supply private keys along with the .NAP file will be to circumvent the copy control measure of the .NAP file format, any attempt to implement an open-source whatusedtobenapster client will run afoul of the DMCA.
Not that I can see anyone wasting time implementing this, when there are free (as in speech and beer) alternatives.
Re:Why Won't Anyone Use It? (Score:2, Interesting)
No matter what sort of encryption system they decide to use, one fact remains.
The Napster software on your PC is capable of decrypting the
Odds are that a
Re:Why Won't Anyone Use It? (Score:5, Funny)
That's quite easy:
Hi! How are you?
I send you this file in order to have your advice
See you later. Thanks
Re: (Score:2)
Umm yeah (Score:3, Insightful)
MP3 is the standard, end of story. It's as much a standard as CD is. People will switch to .NAP, WMA, or even OGG ... oh, I dunno, just as soon as they switch to DVD-Audio, which will be well after we are all dead.
Translation: "hack this code" (Score:4, Informative)
In other words: we've been legally required to implement a security layer on most MP3 files. But it's just a code wrapper, and if you're persistent enough, you can strip it right back off. Just don't mention our name on your "Downloads" page.
Re:Why Won't Anyone Use It? (Score:2, Insightful)
Huh? I'm lost. You're not giving money to the artist. You're giving money to the RIAA and the music monopolies. In the end, the artists might get $0.00000000021 from your sale.
You want to support the artists and screw over the RIAA? Download the MP3 and cut them a check or at least a $5.
Re:Why Won't Anyone Use It? (Score:5, Interesting)
The industry needs to understand a few things.
- People despise copy restrictions. Copy restrictions make it a little more difficult for the amateur thief. They make it lots more difficult for people who want to pay for music but use it in ways that "feel" fair but that don't line up exactly with a narrow-minded view of those in charge of "rights management."
- Paying for music isn't scary. Pay-per-use or pay-per-download is scary because it's not predictable. So long as the pricing is below some threshold of pain (I'm guessing $15/month but I'm no expert), I suspect that folks will be largely willing to "pay the music bill" rather than simply trade among themselves. I suspect that some system of royalty allocation could be worked out based on number of downloads that would split the monthly fee among the various players.
- For heaven's sake! Music is an expressive medium - that's why people want to share it! So the for-pay services need to take advantage of that. Just last night I burned an 18-track CD that consists of a mix of music I enjoy. If I were able to upload my playlist to the aforementioned service, a few of my friends might wind up downloading the files and burning the same CD (particularly if the client software made that easy). Artists (and labels) would get paid for their efforts. And it's enabling me to do something I really can't do right now: share a mix CD with friends without the vague nagging feeling that I'm doing some wrong to the very artists whose music I enjoy. I'd pay for that, though I'd still want it to be flat rate.
- Where's the revenue growth to be found? Ancillary services beyond the basic download-some-music flat-rate service are one option. Flat-rate models will support periodic price increases if the perceived value is there: I'm unlikely to gripe too much if the service goes from $15/month to $17/month in a year's time if I'm finding it valuable.
Sure, there's risk involved in doing this. But I'm not sure it's a big risk: the industry really needs to take the leap of faith and understand that when nearly all of the music-listening public thinks that digital rights management, endless restrictions, damaged media, etc. are a bad idea, perhaps they really need to try something new that provides a mutual benefit.Re:Why Won't Anyone Use It? (Score:2)
/* Just randomly guessing here, but if you compile this you might get a binary that can read DVD's or something */
main()
{
...
Like bad baseball cards (Score:2, Informative)
Hopefully it comes with a new chat client so that when one user reports that all AOL "You've got ____" messages are cleared to trade on the system, another user can reply back "Awesome!!!!!"
Wrong category. (Score:5, Funny)
- It costs money.
- It's not MP3.
- It's MP3, but with copy protection wrappers.
- You can only download a certain number of tracks per month.
And last, but not least, from the "new FAQ": "Why should I pay when I can get it for free somewhere else?", the answer is "You mean aside from the fact that Napster is the coolest?"After I wiped the coffee off my keyboard, I kept reading, and saw "file sharing communities that pay copyright holders and provide simple, useful tools to help you do what you want with your digital music collection are going to prevail."
Well, sure, but the last time I checked, paying for the privilege of being Hilary Rosen's bitch and copy-crippling my MP3s qualified as "what I want to do with my music collection".
I propose that for 2002, all articles concerning RIAA-endorsed music subscription services go under "It's funny. Laugh".
Speaking of FAQ's (Score:4, Funny)
I just bought a new computer and I can't find my files. What happened to them?
I always wondered when using Napster, "What group of people used this service?" Then I remember, during it's peak usage, everyone. I think that's why Napster was so great. It gave me something about computers to which my non-geek friends could relate. I remember knowing people who bought computers and subscribed to the internet because of Napster.
On a side note, the recent recession must be realated to Napster use in some way to the recent economic downturn.
Where do they get all this money? (Score:2)
And they can compete with gnutella how? (Score:2, Informative)
Issues (Score:3, Insightful)
It also helps to secure legitimate venues where artists with the moxie to dive into the digital revolution headfirst instead of trying to control everything like their pig corporate counterpartts can debut their work yet still have a chance of seeing some return.
Any information distribution scheme that attempts to exploit the natural efficiencies of digital interchange is significant, since the copyright vultures are intent on preventing consumers and artists from enjoying these benefits - they want to cut their costs and gouge us for more. No legitimate competition means their monopolies remain unchallenged.
That's funny (Score:2, Insightful)
Aw, poor Napster. Compare to the musicians' lament: Seems kind of sad that so much work will be done on something that everyone will steal.
Re:That's funny (Score:2)
An artist works for passion, a company works for greed.
Re:That's funny (Score:2)
What utter and complete bullshit. Every artist I know hopes to make a living (at least) at what they do.
Re:That's funny (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:That's funny (Score:2)
If they stop because they don't make money -- they aren't artists, capitalists.
Re:That's funny (Score:2)
I code for passion, but I still want to make money out of it!
Doing something for a reason, is different than doing it. If you could not get a job as a programmer, would you still code? If you answer no, you aren't an artist. You aren't a real programmer.
It's as simple as that. Companies don't go into business for any other reason other than to make money. If they don't - it's no ones fault but the companies.
I never said artists don't want to make money. I'm just saying that is not the primary goal of any real artist.
Business off of P2P (Score:2)
Cracking .NAP files (Score:2, Funny)
Somewhere between 1-2 hours is my guess =)
Will the app becalled "DeNAP"?
I say 72 hours (Score:2)
Money on Napster (Score:4, Interesting)
If I can put my music/audio on Napster and then get paid whenever it changes hands, that might be interesting.
MP3.com used to have the "Pay for play" system where artists could get money each time their music was played or downloaded through the site.
At first that system was awesome - it was free for artists AND the listeners! But then MP3.com got bought out and you had to pay $20/month to be part of the program and they started adding all these things which made it really complex. So I quit that.
But if registering my stuff with Napster can get me cash, I'm interested.
There might be some cost to the artist (or maybe it'll be free in the beginning) but it could be cool.
URL (Score:2)
S
The biggest controller of Digital Rights on Earth (Score:5, Insightful)
It will act like a massive distributed file converter, changing billions of MP3 files into
SONY made a small attempt at this with thier proprietary format and portable player that would not play MP3s. It came with software to convert your MP3s to thier format. It bombed.
The new Napster a brilliant idea on paper; use everyones bandwidth and existing mp3s to create a billion file pool of locked music upon which royalties must be paid, in a fully automated system.
The record companies save having to host and convert thier catalogues, and have a ready made system for effortlessly controlling billions of files.
Radio stations will then be compelled to play from
Next of course, they will attempt to legislate that all other formats comply with the
If we are not careful its "Bye Bye" clean Ogg Vorbis, and any other tool that helps you use and share music the way that you used to.
Lets see who signs up for it. What a story.
So let me get this straight ... (Score:5, Insightful)
You simply connect to Napster, Inc and grab your limited tracks? So this is essentially a crippled version of the "jukebox in the sky" model that everyone has been talking about but no one can implement?
I mean, this is like MP3.com back before they got bitch-slapped by the RIAA, right? When you stored your music in a "locker" and could access it anywhere? (Which remains an interesting idea, although I have no idea how it works now on MP3.com. Last time I checked, all but two of my songs were "locked down" and a pop-up let me know that MP3.com were "working diligently" to restore the music in my locker. Sorta like the same lame rhetoric that Napster has: "We're working as fast as we can to get you MP3s to play on your MP3 player.")
Now, okay, maybe someone can explain this to me. I don't mean this to be a troll or flamebait. I'm actually curious about this: why in the world would I *pay* Napster simply to get a crippled version of (take your pick) Morpheus?
Granted, it's nice to see that artists are going to get paid. But -- again -- maybe I'm missing something here -- but if the RIAA four years had foresight enough to deal with the MP3 onslaught in a shrewd, savvy way, we'd (a) have the great big jukebox in the sky at this point and (b) the artists (at this point) *would* be getting paid.
So by supporting Napster -- or MusicNet or PressPlay -- what I'm essentially doing is two things: (1) paying protection so as not to get fingered by the RIAA and (2) supporting the RIAA in their quest to *litigate* technology out of the marketplace.
This new Napster is "approved" technology where the old technologies are maverick technologies, unapproved, and therefore illegal?
I get the sense that Napster will become some sort of litmus test for the RIAA. It's going to be one of the incubators (MusicNet and PressPlay being the others) to see how profit can be derived from on-line music.
And again, I got no problem with giving artists their fair-share, but I'm very uncomfortable with the RIAA being in the middle.
What I'd like to see is a Napster that takes the RIAA out of the equation. I'd like to be able to give Bob Dylan or whomever my five cent listening fee and know that it's going into Dylan's pockets. I don't want some fat-cat exec skimming 4.5 cents from that nickel in order to support his Lexus habit or the fact that he or she has to pay rent on his overbig house in the Hamptons.
Napster? PressPlay? Forget it.
Re:So let me get this straight ... (Score:5, Insightful)
I've been seeing similar statements frequently in other threads as well. I think this type of statement really exemplifies an odd ethical state-- think about what you're saying. The clear reason is that one choice is illegal, the other legal. With one choice, you are buying intellectual property as agreed upon by the publishers (maybe the creators), and in the other case, you're taking the property without permission. Really, this is similar to saying, "why pay for a newspaper every morning when I can swipe one from the guy on the subway?"
Admittedly, I routinely download copyrighted material, yet I have a clear understanding of the real economics and ethics of what I'm doing. In this scenario, it's not uncommon for me to actually purchase the media and share my own money with the content creators (although I will concede that with music, too much does go to the publishers. Yet this is a different story, and is too frequently confused with MP3 contraversy-- after all, the creators are getting little either way, and even less in the case that the music is redistributed, making it a weak justification in my opinion).
Don't get me wrong; I think Napster's current business model is skewed and overly restrictive, and it will doubtfully work. But the fact that so many users have to ask the question of "why?" expresses a worrying lack of understanding and consideration.
Re:So let me get this straight ... (Score:3, Insightful)
> newspaper every morning when I can swipe one from
> the guy on the subway?
It's the same argument you've been hearing for years about why pirating software is ok. In your scenerio, the guy on the subway paid for that paper. If I steal it from him, he will have to spend more money buying a second copy for himself. If I download some 1's and 0's arranged in a pleasent way, I'm not really taking anything from anyone.
Lost sales? Not really. Most pirates are kids who don't have the money anyway. I download a lot of stuff, mostly to play with then delete. If I find some gem that I will use to be more productive in my work, I will definately buy it.
.
Re:So let me get this straight ... (Score:2)
Name-brand versus Free? (Score:5, Interesting)
I mean, can't anyone think of other cases where people chose an expensive product over a free one? I can think of one or two off the top of my head.
Who comes up with this stuff? (Score:2)
I can't help but think that we'd all be better off if the RIAA companies would agree to start a subscription service where people can download songs for $1.00 per song in MP3 (unprotected) format. That kind of pricing makes it so that most people wouldn't mind paying for the music (after all, getting it from your friends would just be a bitch and it's only a dollar). Not to mention, you could avoid the "filler" tracks that come on many albums.
A buck per song. MP3 format so I can take it with me when I go for a jog/sit in the bookstore/mow the lawn/visit the outhouse. If the RIAA companies "trim the fat" a little to get production costs down, everyone could be happy.
Re:Who comes up with this stuff? (Score:2)
Re:dumb idea (Score:2)
That point of view, I believe, is one where the average person listens to 2 or 3 songs off a given CD and ignores the rest as "filler." Let's say that the average, music-purchasing consumer buys 12 CDs per year (someone else is more than welcome to plug in the appropriate stats). If we assume the maximum number of desired tracks per album is 3, then that's only $36 spent on the music the consumer wants. But, given that CD prices range between $15 and $25 dollars, that same consumer will likely end up spending upwards of $180 on music. Bum deal.
I'm sure that there will always be those who want their music for free, and if they want it bad enough, they'll find a way to get it. But the majority still do it the old-fashioned entirely legal way and I think recording industry companies can still make a good buck without pissing said old-fashioned customers off so much that they (the customers) start looking for the less-than-legal free ways.
Tit for Tat (Score:2)
Feh!
Ok, I made one post already... (Score:2)
I'm just asking because I know I've certainly never produced an album or promoted an artist. What kind of costs are involved here? If you wanted to produce an album (assuming CD sales would continue as well as online distribution) and then make the songs available for download in MP3 format, would $1.00 be a good price at which to sell? Would that make money for the artist as well as the company?
I'm guessing that albums and singles that are really successful are those which have sold upwards of one million copies, but that math doesn't seem to work out on a per-song basis. Assuming an artist/band has ONE hit single that one million people download and pay $1.00 for, that's only $1 million in revenue. Considering the likely costs involved, it doesn't seem worth it.
Anyone got any idea what it costs these days to have a professionally-produced album? How about the costs of maintaining a file-download facility like the one needed to support this kind of MP3 distribution?
The .NAP format (Score:5, Funny)
We did extensive research and analysis on all of the available encryptions schemes. We even considered rolling our own. Based on the fact that all client programs would be required to have the decryption algorythm, and at some point the content must be presented to the user, we concluded that security rested entirely within the DMCA.
After reaching this conclusion, we did what any good programmer would have done. We decided not to waste time writing redundant code. We reused an available package. At the insistance of the lawyers, we spent a few minutes customizing the package to be incompatible with the original. The
-
Re:The .NAP format (Score:2)
Re:The .NAP format (Score:4, Funny)
What I posted was purely expressive speach, devoid of any functional aspect. It was therefore covered by the first amendment. All I did was reffer to an encryption scheme by name, without discussing any implementation details. Had I included implementation details I might have violated the DCMA by "providing aid or advice". Had I posted executable code then the functional aspect would have exceded the expressive aspect, and would not have been protected by the first amendment. The courts are still arguing over the expressive aspect / functional aspect in reguard to source code. So far the concensus seems to be to allow source code to be restricted based on it's functional aspect because of the fact that any other resolution would totally gut the DCMA.
As you can see, the situation is quite clear, and there is no justifacation for any good American to break the law. That goes for the rest of the world too. If you're not with us, you're against us. Any failure to comply with our copyright laws is not only unamerican, it's an obvious attempt to undermine the US economy!
Terrorists everywhere!
-
Re:The .NAP format (Score:2)
My money is on three days max. before there is software available to convert NAP to MP3. Remember if I can hear it I can copy it, through my Soundblaster Live it's as simple as record what you hear. In Total Recorder [highcriteria.com] I can do an MP3 on the fly. Another proprietary format just adds to the confusion, without doing anything to alleviate the licensing problems that plague the online music arena, and encryption of the music, downright silly...DMusic [dmusic.com] has an article [dmusic.com] by Ben Silverman where he quotes some recording industry execs.about what they've done in the past year. Following suit won't make it better only worse. My 2 Euros worth.
Does vegas do odds on this stuff? (Score:2)
1) How long before somebody cracks the standard?
2) How long before Napster sues the person who cracks the standard under the DMCA?
Oh and word to the wise of whoever cracks it, don't take credit, just place it anonymously on some newsgroup and dissapear. Let somebody else take the heat.
The RIAA "wins" either way. (Score:3, Insightful)
People don't use Napster, and the RIAA claims we are a bunch of pirating hoolagins and therefore justifies more laws and restrictions.
Start hording those copy protections free hard drives and CD burners...
to survive (Score:2, Insightful)
oh well. <awaits "napster closes down" before march 02>
I'm more interested in seeing a different model... (Score:2, Informative)
Microsoft & Napster (Score:2, Informative)
Can't decide whats better...having to use
Same old sad arguments (Score:4, Insightful)
This is the best argument you guys can come up with? "It's not the same as MP3, and besides, I can steal it anyway, so why should I pay? Anyway, only the fat cats at the record companies would benefit. If I could pay the artists directly, then yeah, maybe."
Why stop there? Why shouldn't you pay programmers directly for software instead of their employers? When I buy a gallon of milk, shouldn't the money go directly to the dairy farmer instead of the grocery store? [ PETA version: it goes to the cow. ] And of course every penny of that $25K Explorer should go to the auto workers that built it.
It's very simple, folks. These artists chose to enter into an agreement that stated they gave up the right to market their work. That's the way business works - sometimes you make a good deal, sometimes you don't.
I wish folks would stop rationalizing theft in the name of some distorted notion of "freedom".
Umm.. isn't this a GOOD thing? (Score:3, Interesting)
So basically, for popular music, this translates to the RIAA getting paid. This is what people bitch about, somehow using their hatred of the RIAA to justify breaking the law, but of course this is legitimate business since the artists signed away their copyright to the record label(s)..
I speculate that during the downtime Napster has been able to get thousands of artists "approved" to use the service. This means that when they get back online I'd guess that many people who initially sign up (and with the Napster name, I think there will be more than just a few) will have their entire MP3 collections tagged as approved with a few exceptions. This is actually one good thing that comes from a monopoly on music: only half a dozen fat cats to bargain with and you get the right to re-distribute (or in Napster's case, piggy back the distribution of) a shitload of music
However, it also seems that Joe Q. Artist will be able to "publish" his music on Napster and get paid for it. If a lot of people migrate over to the new Napster, it's possible that many artists currently being screwed by the RIAA might say "fuck it" and just release their stuff on their own via Napster.
The
I don't see it being much of a big deal to the tens of thousands of college kids when the phrase "Hey Napster is back up!" is uttered around campuses to shell out $15 on mom's Visa in order to log in. I'm talking about the non-Slashdot reading CS majors who shower and used to enjoy downloading the trendy songs they heard on the radio via Napster. These people are not going to complain about NAP and the few tech savvy will convert them to MP3, and will not make the connection that Napster is making money off of their bandwidth.
I think it might just work. The question really is weither or not there are a lot of people who dropped sharing MP3s altogether after Napster died (and didn't try Gnutella, etc.) and will be willing to pay a bit each month to start getting new music again. Also, there will probably be a few people who switch just so they're not breaking the law anymore (if the Slashdot "Information wants to be something I don't have to pay for.. I mean.. Free!" piracy team can believe that.) We'll see I guess.
Re:Secure Format? (Score:5, Funny)
Maybe that's their business model? A couple of people being caught for DMCA violations, and they've done better than any other DotCom so far. The bastards...it's almost TOO clever...
No Dammit Taco... (Score:2)
Re:Dammit Taco... (Score:2, Insightful)
Based on the quotes, it appears to me that the submitter was editorializing. I thought it was kinda funny myself. I think most readers realize they are going to get lots of editorializing on slashdot and, far from being impressionable nerds, they are ready to smack down dumb statments faster than I can reload.
Re:I'll pass... (Score:3, Informative)
isn't it clear to you that people don't want to buy the 12 track cd for the 2 songs they want to hear? I'm not saying that it's a good thing that they only like the songs that are spoon-fed to them on MTV, but that's what they want. If they can get just those songs, why buy the CD? Or if it comes down to listening to just those songs that they paid for thru napster, or not buying the CD at all....which does the musician prefer? I guess we could do a full analysis of the situation, make a few estimates, plug in some formulas....
Personally, I think this whole capitalism/free market thing sucks, but it sucks a little less than the alternatives...so if a musician "goes out of business" cuz he can't afford to just make music...well its just too bad. if a musician wants to make money because he likes it and he's good at it....well there's plenty of people in the world who don't like their jobs, so the musician can go flip burgers like the rest of them, then go home at night and whine about it in a song.
ok, enough ranting.
Re:I'll pass... (Score:2)
When are people going to wake up and realize that music does not demand US$2M videos, or multi-million-dollar ad campaigns. You are paying the labels for the privelege of making sure that you're listening to the same music as the asshole in the car next to you!
The same NSYNC song you hear on the radio makes NSYNC (and its label) millions in endorsements, merch, ticket sales, calendars, psters and other bullshit. Why do you need to add to their giant, steaming pile of cash with the $2 you throw on? Because you feel guilty? Please! Do yourself a favor- shut off the radio for 2 seconds and go to a record store. That's right, a real record store. Look at the records, then buy some. Notice the $10 price tag. Stop on the way home and buy a record player.
Once you get home, download all the mp3s you want, because you already own the rights to the music. Hell, if you find some songs from the same band you didn't buy yet, download those too. Any band still publishing on vinyl probably doesn't care.
Realize: you are the consumer. Your opinion is the only one that matters. If you think CDs are priced unfairly, stop fucking buying them!. If you think radio sucks, stop fucking listening to it!.
Either way, never sign up for some subscription service. Subscriptions are a great business model, but they put the onus on the consumer to get the most use out of them. If cable was offered on a pay-per-show basis, the cable companies would go bankrupt because it would force consumers to analyze their entertainment choices, just like at the movie theatre, or the concert hall, or the arcade. One by one, only the best programs would be watched, and there would be no audience for the crap that passes as TV. Paying a subscription fee for music makes the already miserable music scene even more depressing.
Re:I'll pass... (Score:3, Insightful)
Stealing? Are you kidding? Do even know what the word means? In order to steal something, I have to take it first, which means depriving the original owner of the use of it. That's not what's happening here. When you download a song you haven't paid anyone for, you're doing just that: listening to a song you haven't paid for, which, ironically enough, happens every time you turn on the radio. When you do it after buying other works by the same artist on another format, it's even more inoccuous.
That idea was not pulled out of my ass. I have plenty of personal contact within the independent music scene. You know what? They _don't_ care. Most smaller acts make most of their money by touring, and value their fanbase over their chart position for this reason.
I believe that a subscription based system such as this new Napster is completely representive for the state of music today anyway.
Good for you, then. You can have my slot if you want it. Although the record execs want to believe that all people want to do is buy one or two hits, they envy the money the indie biz pulls in on tours and merch.
People are not concerned with the overall work and feel of a record
How do you explain the success of Radiohead's Kid A or Amnesiac, then? Huh? Sheesh.
Get the songs you want and artists get paid.
Bullshit. Read some of the other posts, or have a friend in a signed band show you his record contract. The artists make their money on tour, which is why most of them don't care what you download.
Re:Are they stupid? (Score:2, Insightful)
You are right in that it probably won't work, but it's got to be worth a shot.
NewNap? (Score:2, Funny)