Napster Offers $1B For Music-Swapping Rights 317
An unnamed correspondent writes: "CNET is reporting that Napster has offered to pay the music industry $1 billion over 5 years for the rights to unlimited music swapping. That works out to $1.67/month/user with 50 million users." Here's coverage on FoxNews as well, which says: "Under the proposed settlement, $150 million would be paid each year for the first five years to the major record labels -- Sony, Warner, BMG, EMI and Universal -- with an additional $50 million alloted annually for independent labels."
Re:50 million users? (Score:2)
And if you're lucky and careful, you can get an amazing amount of stuff done before you actually click that button.
Lame Ain't Legal Either (Score:5)
Plus, there's now an mp3 encoder (LAME) that is open-source, meaning that anyone can compile it and use it; gone are the days of paying Fraunhofer IIS royalties for "their intellectual property".
Fraunhofer Group still owns patents in the United States and other countries on the process of "Overlapped cosine transform plus Fourier transform encoding, followed by psychoacoustic quantization and entropy coding" which is a necessary and irreplaceable part of MP3 encoding. This is why Ogg Vorbis doesn't use a Fourier transform but instead a finer cosine transform.
All your hallucinogen [pineight.com] are belong to us.
They are laughing right now.... (Score:2)
Use Gnutella (Score:2)
FYI: Copyright not a natural right in USA. (Score:5)
First, IANAL, yet.
Artists have never been entitled to say what happens to their works, at least in the USA. Now, they are granted the sole, assignable right to make commercial copies of said work. Similarly, they are granted by law royalties for public performance of their works. That is the extent of their entitlement, to my knowledge.
Copyright, based on the clause in the US Constitution investing Congress with the power to secure a limited monopoly for artists and inventors "to promote the useful arts and sciences", is not an absolute grant nor a property right. It is a limited monopoly, granted by Congress. This stands in contrast to legal systems in other countries (e.g. France) wherein the foundation of Copyright is a "natural right" - a non-assignable (IIRC) right of authors to dispose of their works as they see fit. This is why French directors and authors always get the final cut of their works, if I'm not mistaken.
Our system recognizes different "natural rights" (like freedom of speech, and the press), and the foundation of our copyright system is pragmatic - designed to promote progress and the creation of new works, not to ensure an artist has total control over a work they have created (there are good philosophical reasons for this I won't go into here, but for a start, consider that neither art nor invention exist in a vacuum). I would further argue that the philosophy behind the Constitutional basis for copyright would find the current copyright regime (which rather than encouraging new works, encourages an "everlasting gravy-train" mentality among copyright holders) abhorrent.
I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice, blah blah blah.
-Isaac
$1 Billion---That's squat! (Score:2)
They will piss on this offer.
What we need is a working micropayment system (Score:2)
1) Recording artists could distribute their music online in an encrypted format of some type (MP3 or some successor with better audio fidelity).
2) Joe and Josephine User download this music and pay for it using a truly useful micropayment system (now that would be an interesting Open Source project).
3) The bulk of the micropayment goes to the actual artist, not to the media conglomerate.
4) Joe and Josephine get the music they want.
Arguments against this concept:
A) People will still find a way to beat the encryption. Of course they will, just like people burn CD copies of their music now. The music companies still make hundreds of millions of dollars every year. At least this way the artists are getting their cut.
B) Peer-to-peer technology will kill this concept because people will just slide past the encryption and then post songs on (Napster, Gnutella, whatever). Not if you make the encryption tough enough that it becomes more trouble than it's worth to hack the encryption and then post the songs on a server somewhere.
The heart of the matter is that there are three principal actors in this drama: the record labels, the consumer, and the artists. The record labels have been getting fat on profits that are based on control of the means of production (sorry, Marx). The consumer has become greedy with Napster (hey, why not get ALL of my music for free?!). The folks getting screwed are still the artists.
Let's think about the people who give us all this great music, and let's come up with something that works for them. My guess is that if it works for the artists, it will work for consumers. As for the music companies, they can choke on their own greed.
3 million songs, not 3 billion transfers (Score:2)
The record companies are asking for $100,000 per copyright violation.
No, $100K per work violated, the maximum statutory damages under US law. There are likely less than 3 million unique RIAA songs available through Napster.
All your hallucinogen [pineight.com] are belong to us.
Re:WHOSE GOING TO PAY? YOU ARE ! WHY?? (Score:2)
I agree wholeheartedly with your message except for the following:
>This is the internet, we aren't going to pay for something that is already free.
I think this is a dangerous sentiment. Internet or not, you've got to be willing to pay an artist a fair price for a hard day's work. Unfortunately the RIAA cronies are so entrenched in protecting their monopoly that they refuse to sell me a song (unlimited license) for $1 a pop. Had they done so they would be trillionaires, but their minds are hard-wired to refuse anything that doesn't have a guaranteed increase in profit margin, regardless of revenue. People would gladly pay just for the sheer convenience. However the old, grey, small-minded monopolists decided to steal from us, and the internet community decided to steal back. Now they get nothing, and I'm happy. I know I've bought my last music until the system is changed. The RIAA will not get $20 per CD from me, nor will they even get my $1 a pop for an unlimited license. Am I wasting my time? I bet the first Napster subscriber thought the same...
---
Re:50 million users? (Score:2)
Napster works because it is easy to use-- no copyright protection stuff, passwords (beyond one you type once and forget), identity proof, etc. I can use it on all of my computers without any problem. Remember when computer games and software were like this? Right, before they became such huge business (software companies argue before piracy grew).
An on-line music service that is a major hassle is a no-go. I'd pay a lot of money for a Napster that gets me legal, high quality songs. I wouldn't pay if it is a pain in the ass to use. If I can't connect from home because I forgot to log out at home, that sucks. If I'm paying and it's using a peer-to-peer architecture, I expect some kind of credit for the disk space and upload bandwidth I'm losing (how cool would that be for both the consumer and company-- a product that gets cheaper the more you use it).
-m
Dear Napster, (Score:2)
Do all of this, and I will give you my piece of the billion dollars. Until then, back to Half.com for used CDs.
Re:50 million users? (Score:2)
------------
CitizenC
Unfair by nature (Score:5)
Re:Unfair by nature (Score:2)
I'm not so sure. If Napster has that kind of money to throw around, how far behind this is an AOL-like free sign-up CD blitz of the market? Many mildly interested people will be too lazy to sign up with Napster (or any other service) on their own. AOL cornered the ISP/portal market by making it very easy for this type of person to sign up. And AOL keeps them because they're too lazy to switch, even when they know there are better deals. (My sister, for example).
AOL showed that this market is probably the overwhelming majority of people out there. Don't count out Napster just yet.
Re:Unfair by nature (Score:2)
Pay WHO? (Score:2)
Something for nothing (Score:2)
"The $1 billion fee would be the equivalent for the industry of selling another $5.4 billion in CDs, since the labels would have no additional production and distribution costs associated with that fee, he noted. "
Something for nothing for life + 95 years, and the major labels are fighting this. Really, that's been a lot of people's argument since the beginning. Something for nothing. But who is paying for the protection? And who is getting it? [discover.com]
--
opennap is still free (Score:4)
Until then opennap it is.
Re:opennap is still free (Score:2)
Implied extension of the sentence you quoted is
Yes, there is an elitism here, and it has nothing to do with the cost of my collection. It has to do with all these people posting to this story claiming that they have all this respect for music and the people who create it when most of them couldn't find the way to the nearest record store if you dragged them by the mouse they were clinging to like it was their primary life support.
If you are, and have been, a music purchaser then you know that both sides of the "record sales are being affected" battle are total bullshit. Sales are up because the economy is up. Record sales aren't being altered one way or the other in any significant manner by the existance of Napster.
What we have instead are a bunch of johnny-come-lately's who now have huge collections of music when prior to the existence of Napster they had virtually none. If you take any kind of objective look around you will see that this is primarily the case with Napster users.
But I have no problem with this. It's great that more people are listening to more music. What I take serious issue with is all this bleating by these same people about how fucking concerned they are with music and artist's rights. They cheapen the devotion of those of us who truly care about these things in the same way that the drunken wife abuser next door cheapens the WWII veterans when he makes a big deal about hoisting up the flag every July 4th just so he can feel better about getting drunk on his day off.
The only people who have any valid claim to caring about music when they primarily just collect mp3's are very young teenagers. If you haven't been a true listener and collector since you were under 18 then you missed something fundamental about music. I'm sorry, but you just don't know what it's about. You missed it. It's too late, and no matter how hard you try you can't recapture what you missed.
That is the elitism. If you never spent significant time in a record store then you aren't a part of what makes music what it is. Yes, it is an elitist group. We have a bond and you can't share it. You can't even understand it.
And to loudly advocate the rights of music and musicians without ever being a part of the fundamentals of that scene is bullshit. If you truly cared, and you aren't under 15, then you would have been there. You weren't, so shut up. If you weren't there then you didn't care. Jumping on the bandwagon now that music collecting is easy doesn't cut it.
Go ahead and leech all that you can. I'm glad you've finally got some decent music in your car. But don't take some moral high ground because you aren't fucking entitled to it.
Re:Get real (Score:2)
And for the DJ that has the vinyl version....two thumbs up. The good DJ's can tell what a crowd wants in spite of requests. A good DJ is on top of the current music scene and knows the relations to the past. I doubt they would dislike access to a huge collection.
Y
Absolutely they'll pay! (Score:2)
For the forseeable future at the very least. If the Buck-oh-five estimation of the price is on target, people will be scrambling to pay.
One reason will be the assuagement of conscience. Now you're use of Napster is ethical and untouchable, no more sting of guilt. I think this will actually be quite a compelling reason, even though it won't get much airplay. Most people don't like to feel like their having their fun at the expense of the folks who give it to them.
Plus let's not forget you're also getting the most convenient and efficient way on the planet to test if that new band's CD really is worth the 15 or so Shekels you're thinking of shelling out.
Sorry to be such a napster booster here (I don't work for them!) but let's also remember that for many people, a cheap way to legally get as many mp3s as they can swallow means the end of their cd collections. Why should I spend so much on CDs when I can get a mother of a hard drive for my mp3s? Not that $1.67 really bites into the CD budget anyway. A lot of people think that mp3 is good enough. And as the codecs make the music smaller, making digital more convenient, more are likely to think this way.
It'll just be ultra convenient. Gee, only 50 million? think it'll stop there when your potential clientele includes every online person on the planet? If the RIAA buys this deal, it will be ALL GOLD.
Re:opennap is still free (Score:2)
You are not "ditching" your collection, you are archiving it. Fundamental difference.
You are a bit brainwashed by the media as far as the common napster user, as I am a common napster user.
You are a bit brainwashed by slashdot as far as the common napster user, as you are not a common napster user.
Show me somewhere else that says otherwise that found this out by asking each user
Yes, indeed please show me where you have gotten your facts that aren't equally biased. Fact is, there isn't any valid study, only anecdotal evidence. And you know what? Of course there's more people claiming your side then mine. Do you really expect all the thieves to stand up en masse to be counted? Check the leech ratios of any file sharing service, be it Napster, Gnutella, FTP, whatever. Lots and lots of downlaoders and damn few hosts.
RIAA vs. Artists? (Score:2)
Contrary to popular belief, members of the RIAA don't send agents to the houses of talented artists and threaten to break their legs unless they agree to be represented through them. I also find it very hard to believe that any artist expects that most of the revenue from their music will come back to them: I'm certain those members of the RIAA that they CHOOSE to deal with make this very clear. This in fact is fair: The artists put in their talents, but as history has shown, the excessive marketting and management provided by the RIAA are most costly and more effective in such a lemming market as North America (thus we have such successful groups as the Backstreet Boys and N*SYNC). Artists are also VERY rarely locked in dark basements and forced to make music without food or water while chained to microphones and handcuffed to instruments. Simply put: The artists who work within the RIAA aren't forced into unequitable treatment or abusive circumstances without some say of their own, and while all the money doesn't go to them, I can't think of many artists under the RIAA's overseeing that've resorted to an impoverish lifestyle without some poor decisions of their own.
Realize, of course, that if prices for CDs weren't "artificially inflated" as the FTC suggests, artists would make even MORE money and marketting would be almost nill, with most of the actual revenue going toward paying for meager marketing and standard expenses.
Anyway, back on topic, selling the rights to the distribution of their music isn't abuse of the artists on the RIAA's part, as I'm certain that such issues are covered in initial contracts. Heck, if people're opposed to the RIAA allowing distribution of music across Napster, than why aren't these same people protesting the use of artists' music on radio stations? Most of the time they have no say in that either! What injustice! Sure the situations are different at heart, but aren't the principles essentially the same?
Anyway, I'm sick of people acting as if this is some huge controversy and injustice on the part of the RIAA, both toward consumers and artists. There's nothing new in this scenario that hasn't been going on for decades within the industry: the only difference are the players... or rather, one of the players.
If you're so intent on defending the rights of the artists, stop attacking those few that actually voice their own opinions, such as Metallica. Otherwise you're simply a biased hypocrite.
Re:People won't pay... (Score:2)
People won't have to pay!
all it takes is one big isp somewere
in the world who decides to try to
bundle their service with legal
free access to music via napster..
and then raise their rates 2-3$ a month..
and the snowball is rolling.
Re:opennap is still free (Score:2)
You're going to give them CC information? (Score:2)
*We know that the RIAA and musicians can track who is downloading what on Napster.
*You give Napster your financial information.
*We know that the RIAA and certain musicians can muster superlative legal power.
*Is it so impossible that they can get this information from Napster to "ensure that their requirements are being met"? Sure, there are probably laws about this kind of thing. Hell, there are alot of laws...millions. Has this stopped anyone with enough money yet? No!
*Lets say you download more of a certain album than the lawyers or tracking services would like you to.
*Suddenly "NapGuy986" becomes "Joe "Evil" Pirate of 123 Main Street, Your Town, USA. Phone Number 867-5309 Goes to F University, drives a Honda, penchant for very progressive magazines." and so on and so forth.
I don't know about you, but I'm not paying for this thing unless I can drop by CVS and have them cut a money order for $2 for the pleasure.
I think we need to protect both solutions (Score:2)
One the other hand you have Napster II, a pay service, sanctioned and serviced by the major labels and major corporations. They have the benefit of being able to profit and will most likely have a better, easier-to-use service and the added benefit of tons and tons of existing capital.
Can the two systems co-exist? Given a totally free market, which one would prosper? A challenge, perhaps?
[don't read too much into the commie stuff, please]
--
Re:50 million users? -- more questions (Score:2)
This is going to fail for one reason best described by a cliche, "There is no honor among thieves."
What happens after 5 years?? (Score:3)
quality of service expectation (Score:3)
Re:People won't pay... (Score:3)
Yet another reason the RIAA's artists should be releasing their albums in high-quality MP3 bundles, for a fair price (I'd say, $5-7 per album, with 50% or more going to the artists themselves would be fair to us and fair to the artists).
People will pay if it's CONVENIENT and UNENCUMBERED. If either of those two things fails to exist, they will STEAL. This is why Napster is successful. This is why other similar services will be successful in the future. The RIAA can get it's act together and profit, or keep losing control over their content as they have been.
It's an olive-branch manuver (Score:2)
Napster is offering One Billion Dollars. To the average human, that sounds like a hell of alot of money. Wow...A Whole Billion Dollars..Just Imagine!
To the RIAA (non-humans), that's a drop in their Bucket of Relentless Riches +2.
So Napster is saying "Here...we're going to give you a whole Billion Dollars if you leave us the hell alone".
The RIAA can say "Ha ha ha...we PISS on your measly billion...begone with you!!"
At which point, the RIAA looks like huge bastards.
Napster can then say "See? We tried to be nice...tried to appease them, but they shot us down"
Film at 11, and suddenly everyone in the world finally sees what greedy jerks the RIAA et al are!
Personally, I like that.
What about the artist? (Score:2)
In fact I think the artist will be worse off under an all you can eat plan. The pie is just going to end up being more thinly sliced leaving artists with the skinniest one.
Record labels have historically screwed the artists and this isn't going to change that.
Matt.
If you believe in compensating the artist use Fairtunes [fairtunes.com].
Re:opennap is still free (Score:2)
You don't give a flying fuck about the artists you lying piece of shit. You, like very other heavy Napster user out there, don't care about artists or music. Yes, you read that right.
People who truly enjoy and appreciate music don't download mp3's. They buy their music, because there is much more to the whole concept of what recorded music is than just the sounds.
But you, and others like you, don't understand that. You have never understood that because until mp3's came along you didn't give a rat's ass about music, and you still don't. Prior to 1998 your entire music collection consisted of Beck's Mellow Gold and the first Us3 album because your friends said they were cool. But now that you've got 20G of mp3's we're all supposed to believe that you're some afficienado of music? Bullshit!
You take it becuase you can and because it's free. If it wasn't easy you wouldn't bother with music at all. In case you can't quite follow the logic there, that means that you don't care about music, and you certainly don't care about musicians.
There are thousands and thousands of people who have collected huge numbers of CD's, LP's, and even a few cassettes, of music that they love and appreciate. Are these people converting all their stuff to mp3 and ditching the physical versions? NO. Are they the typical demographic of mp3 users? NO. Do they still buy CD's and LP's? YES. Do they truly appreciate music and the artists that create it? YES. Do you? NO.
You're a leacherous fuck. You care for nothing but what is convenient and easy. If music were gone from your life you wouldn't miss it after 5 days, because if you truly loved music you would take the necessary steps to actually own some.
Get real (Score:2)
And the best part of all of this...the record companies will have less power to force songs down the throat of the consumer as more users will just select the download songs similar to those in my collection (based on a song rating/review system) for my listening pleasure.
Think of the many ways that this could benefit the music lover. Payment based on download activity has the possibility of weakening the crushing grip that record companies have on "popular music". We might be able to spread the wealth a little and prevent me from having to switch channels every time Brittney or Eninem (sp?) or whoever is being pushed at me by the record biz, and instead allow me to create my own database and find similar music (sprinkled with new suggestions, thumbs up or down Tivo style) and enjoy it.
I want Napster to become mainstream. It will change everything! For the better!
Re:Problem is it'll be "Napster II" with encryptio (Score:2)
Yeah, well, you & I know that. The fatcats aren't that smart. What they'll do when they get whacked by a cluestick is another matter.
FYI: Napigator v2.0 (Winblows) is out! (Score:3)
Get it [napigator.com] for OpenNap servers!
Re:Unfair by nature (Score:5)
You're assuming 50 million people will decide to pay Napster, instead of just using one of the many alternatives. [napigator.com]
I don't think this assumption is warranted. I'll be surprised if more than 1% pay, and I'll be shocked into incredulous silence with my mouth hanging open if more than 10% pay.
-
Re:Unfair by nature (Score:2)
You think Napster can acheive 50 million in a year? Or even five?
If not, the cost per month estimates floating around are WILDLY inaccurate, literally by orders of magnitude.
-
Re:50 million users? (Score:2)
Sounds good to me (Score:2)
--------
Re:Get real (Score:2)
Those kids weren't already getting pagers and cellphones for free when suddenly they began to cost money, with free alternatives still available.
The comparison you should be making isn't with cellphones and pagers, it's with Netscape Navigator. How many people do you think would pay for that if it suddenly became commercial again, with no free version available?
-
Re:What we need is a working micropayment system (Score:2)
Why bother with encryption at all?
---
Re:50 million users? (Score:2)
And you of course also are thinking of the deal between BMG(Bertlesmann) and Napster. BMG already is on the side of Napster making deals and I would have to think an alliance with AOL-TW would put TW in a pro-Napster deal position. That is two of the five. Boy, I can't wait til all five of those companies do away with the formalities of being separate entities and merge. But, seriously do any of the Big 5 of the RIAA have significant stakes in competitors to AOL, which would make a Napster-AOL-RIAA deal bad for them?
Napster playing by the music industry's rules (Score:2)
Nice smokescreen (Score:2)
Unfortunately, this action, if approved by the Music companies, will mean that the RIAA will focus their attentions on the other file sharing apps on the 'net.....
Re:Unfair by nature (Score:2)
probably not enough (Score:3)
They sort of have a Daffy Duck mentality when it comes to money (Mine! Mine! it's Mine! All Mine!)
Watch them shoot the goose that lays the golden eggs rather then give it up to anyone else. Even tho the goose was never theirs in the first place.
Re:Unfair by nature (Score:2)
You know, that thought occured to me too. If you really read my post, I did mention Napster and Napster-like services. I suppose there will always be some sort of evil empire, but I see a system like this as less of an evil. Especially if there are competing companies. At least, finally, there would be competition to the RIAA companies. As consumers, we do ultimately have control, but with the RIAA giants having as much power as they've had, our only option for a long time is to buy from them or have nothing. Having said that, some of my favorite bands/music are locals. While this system still may not make them millionares, at least they have the chance to be heard, and make some profit as well. I think it works for everyone, the little guy gets a chance, we as consumers save money, and get freedom of choice to what music we want and don't want to purchase on a song by song basis.
Basicly, it means consumers have more control, and that is always better.
"Everything that can be invented has been invented."
Re:50 million users? (Score:3)
2. What's going to stop people from sharing Napster accounts?
Napster might well cut a deal with AOL where all AOL users become Napster members. AOL would pay Napster around $50 million a month for this and would maybe raise its rates a dollar or two. Remember AOL is now AOL Time Warner one of the Big Five recording companies.
The logical extension of this once Napster does cut a deal with the RIAA similar to the one that Napster proposed for $1Billion, Napster becomes an attractive target for buyout/merger with AOL-Time Warner.
The value of a DJ (Score:2)
Imagine going up to the DJ at your local party/rave and not being limited to his/her personal collection.
Seth
Re:50 million users? (Score:2)
I feel the need to clarify this a bit...
There is no such thing as arresting small-time copyright violators here in Belgium.
(1) Indeed there *was* a threat from the IFPI (www.ifpi.org [ifpi.org]: "IFPI is the organisation representing the international recording industry")
(2) But that threat was only to a small number (100) of users, who had received a warning before
(3) Everyone and his brother says IFPI is not able to identify these users unless they violated the privacy legislation
(4) And, most importantly: Marc Verwilghen, our minister of justice, has declared that the prosecution of small-time piracy has the very lowest priority. This places it, I think, just above cannabis use.
So the whole thing is just some FUD from IFPI.
Re:Only $1.67 per user per month? (Score:3)
I think you have a good point, but I also think the RIAA may be overplaying their hand. No matter what happens to this particular company, the rise of Napster was a watershed event for the music distribution industry: Millions of people have learned that it is feasible and easy for them to use the internet to move music around.
No matter what happens now, people will still know that. And just as importantly, Napster's size and user volume provided a lab for exploration of how to do it - software, legal issues, pitfalls, hype, arguments pro and con, incentive for copycat technologies, etc.
So whoever starts something new is standing on Napster's shoulders. They don't have to deal with the huge hurdle of explaining to the public what it is and how it works and why it might be fun to use. They don't have to do a lot of the development. They only have to deal with the legal issues.
And there are two ways that can go down. One, someone with a lot of money can make an offer the RIAA can't refuse, and it happens above board. If that happens, okay, well, fair enough. Everybody probably wins, or at least nobody loses too much.
Possibility number two, however, is that it goes underground. Someone comes up with a FreeNet or a Gnutella or an OpenNap that works, that scales, and that doesn't have an address where papers can be served. No other industry has ever faced anything like this before: A ready-made, prepackaged illicit adversary with infrastructure already in place, where millions of educated, well-to-do people have demonstrated that they have no moral problem with lending their participation and support.
If the distributors are smart they'll hedge their bets and sign. If I worked for Napster this would sound like blackmail. As it is, it's just some friendly advice.
50 million users? (Score:5)
2. What's going to stop people from sharing Napster accounts?
3. Is subscribing to this new industry-sanctioned Napster going to mean that what was formerly called "pirated" mp3s are now legal to own? Ie, is this buying a license to own MP3s for CDs you didnt' buy because you bought a Napster subscription? Am I allowed to then trade those MP3s via a non-napster (freenet, gnutella, or something else) system?
4. What kind of crazy license/agreement am I gonna have to sign to subscribe? I can't wait to read this agreement. I have a feeling, knowing the RIAA, it will not exactly be equitable, and birthright forfeiture may be included.
W
-------------------
Never happen (Score:2)
Napster was and should stay a voice that shouts, we need to break the corporate mold, screw the DMCA and all the legislators, the hell with the copyright laws that were written in the 1700's. This is a new age, the myths of old, like the railroad track sizings are outdated and stale.
Napster should steer away from this direction and loop back to it's roots. LOOP LOOP LOOP!
They really need to not do this. If they do all their base inch fan and support are belonging to corporate america and not us!
Only a billion if you live in the USA (Score:2)
Grumble grumble grumble
Re:opennap is still free (Score:2)
Re:People won't pay... (Score:3)
Re:opennap is still free (Score:2)
People who truly enjoy and appreciate music don't download mp3's
You are wrong here. I believe I truly appreciate music and the artists that create it. I also download mp3's to sample new music, if I like it, I'll buy it. Last year I discovered (and purchased) more music than I ever did in the past because of napster.
It sounds like you are one of which you spoke of who"collected huge numbers of CD's, LP's, and even a few cassettes" and feel some kind of eliteness because of it. Why are you so hot and bothered over the subject, are you an artist who is getting screwed by napster or something? Or are you just pissed because your expensive music collection is not so special anymore?
Stealers (Score:2)
Re:opennap is still free (Score:3)
Second I own hundreds of records and tapes.
Third I own two times as many cds.
I dont have time to encode the record or tapes.
I use napster.
Why?
Because I have already bought the right to listen to it. It doesnt matter where or from what, acording to fair use, I can do this.
I do care about music, I make music, I also think that someone might hear my music now because I can distribute it via napster, mp3.com, ect.
I am one of the thousands of people that have huge numbers of CD's, LP's, and cassettes.
I am converting all my music into high quality mp3 (lame vbr1 with a max bitrate of 320 and a low of 160) format. I am ditiching the discs, the records and tapes. I am the typical napster/mp3 user. I am not the typical napster/mp3 user as put forth by the media that IS OWNED by the companys that are feeling ripped off (which they shouldnt be to the extent they are). Do I still buy the cds? Yes I do. Do I even listen to them in the media I buy them on anymore? No I dont, I rip them and encode them and I NEVER use the cds again. They are in perfect condition as a result. I do apreciate the music and the artists that create it ( I am an artist ).
You are a bit brainwashed by the media as far as the common napster user, as I am a common napster user.
Show me somewhere else that says otherwise that found this out by asking each user, or ISNT owned by at least one (or is part of a joint corp of said company) company suing napster.
And their is no reason to get angry and cuss about the media bias that isnt true.
Fight censors!
Re:50 million users? (Score:2)
So? AOL is tiny. Napster currently already has over sixty million members. A year ago it was 18 million.
Um, since when does Open Source forbid profit? (Score:2)
Er, no. Profit and its motive (greed) are encouraged under both. While many Open Source projects are produced for altruistic reasons, the recent explosion in Linux is aprtially profit driven. Programmers (and documentors, and managers and even marketers) shave to eat, buy mountain dew, and other things that require money, and are encouraged to do so.
Why on earth would you think otherwise?
Re:opennap is still free (Score:2)
My father is a huge contry music fan. Mostly really old stuff from 30s and 40s. I introduced him to napster and mp3s in general. Not to long after downloading 100+ mp3s he had an mp3 ripper and was ripping his entire cd collection (well over 3k cds).
He also intoduced this to a friend of his who began doing the same thing. He was looking up mp3s to cover all of the old 45s that he has. Next time I am in that part of the state I have been obligated to help him hook up his record player to his sound card so he can rip some of the 45s to mp3s.
These are all people who use napster as a service and not as a way to pillage the recording industry. They both have extream loyalty to music and artists. Now this may be a limited segment of the napster community but out of all the napster users I know there are all this way.
The real test will not be Napster living (Score:2)
It keeps record companies flowing with $$ and the independents will be happy too.
First problem is that this will almost stop the whole notion that Napster is built upon a system where the middleman (record company) is removed. However, they no longer will be removed and will be very necessary for musicians to get any fianancial reward for putting their work online.
It's most likely that Napster will split the $50,000,000 a year for indie labels up in a manner where an indie label would have to register with Napster, and then Napster would be able to include them in the deal in which $50,000,000 is allocated accordingly. Unless Napster offers rewards for individuals who are keen to go around the middleman, the artists will have to sign up to a small indie label and eventually these labels are going to get large and no longer seen as an independent thus making Napster just an entry field in online music distribution/subscription without getting rid of the labels and all we would be left with is pretty much the same as before except you can download songs off the net at a cost from a source which is a record label not the artist themself.
As a musician I think that would suck.
Problem is it'll be "Napster II" with encryption (Score:5)
Oh, and if it's cracked, the record labels wouldn't go along, even if they initially acquiesce.
nobody seems to have ever thought of this (Score:2)
Re:Lame Ain't Legal Either (Score:2)
Re:Only a billion if you live in the USA (Score:2)
In the rest of the world, a billion is 1,000,000,000,000.
1,000,000 is a milliard. Duh yourself.
What comes next (Score:2)
This leads to the question... If Napster gets this rubber stamped by the RIAA, anybody else who offers the ability to exchange MP3's other than Napster now becomes "Enemy number 1" to Napster. Is their next move to try and get some kind of patent on searching/trading MP3 files between individual users online, so they can use it as ammunition against potential rivals in order to recoup their $1B promise?
--
No, where is the moeny _really_ coming from? (Score:2)
It certainly isn't common knowledge that Napster is such a profit power-house. So assuming that they don't have their users all signed up, who is going to give the $1billion to bribe the record companies not to take them down?
I don't use Napster myself, so please excuse me if I am a little out of touch with the Napster user experience.
Re:Only $1.67 per user per month? (Score:2)
Re:opennap is still free (Score:2)
Good question (Score:2)
However, if all MP3s that weren't created by yourself (read: downloaded over Napster) are encrypted, you will only be able to play them with Napster itself (or any Napster-enabled software). Apart from the fact that this will exclude any non-Windows users (I guess the industry couldn't care less about that), people will not be able to use their favourite player / jukebox (big minus because we know how much people love their skins and similar crap), they will not be able to use standalone MP3 player etc.
Wanna start a Napster-account sharing service? (Score:3)
W
-------------------
The real question of course... (Score:2)
Not all artists are part of record lables represented by RIAA.
Some artists want no part of the MafRIAA.
"Everything you know is wrong. (And stupid.)"
Re:People won't pay... (Score:2)
-Restil
Not going to happen (Score:3)
Don't get me wrong, Napster is a good service, but I'm currently willing to put up with those limitations I listed above because the price is right. If they are not able to fix the service to protect my intrests, then I will find another solution.
Can anyone say cartel? (Score:2)
For whatever reason, RIAA won the court case, and Napster's business looked like it was going to be squashed.
Now, all of a sudden, sums of $1bn are being talked about and thrown around, and RIAA are acting like pussycats. Now, the last time I checked, accepting money in return for the protection of a business was called 'protection racketeering'. Granted, RIAA have a group of lawyers who can make this sound like the most legal protection racket you've ever heard of, but surely such a defender of principle as the RIAA shouldn't be adopting methodologies from organised crime?
I ranted on here a long time ago about RIAA being a cartel, moving towards a system of increasing profits by charging high prices for generic, manufactured material (cheaper than real artists, remember), thus trying to charge more money for 'product', which, as far as I'm concerned, is vastly inferior to 'music'. It looks like they've neutered the first wave of resistance to their plans.
Those of us who came to Napster via the cluetrain will move on. OpenNAP is still around, as is Gnutella (which needs a serious re-working, but is still viable). What saddens me is that for once, we had a chance to say to the mainstream that there was a better way than The Man's, that there was an alternative, that occasionally building a better mousetrap does work. I just hope we get another chance to say it soon.
PS. I know that RIAA's principle had to do with giving money to the artists, but I have a feeling that a large chunk of this $1bn will actually go to lawyers.
Re:opennap is still free (Score:2)
And the last "A" in "MPAA" is also "America", but that didn't stop them from going after non-US citizens and web hosts in their battles against DeCSS. When it comes to US mega-corps, many foreign governments seem very willing to bend over and take it.
Re:Unfair by nature (Score:5)
"Everything that can be invented has been invented."
Re:Never happen (Score:5)
How is Napster selling out... they're buying in. It's a business if you haven't noticed. The main Idea for a business is to make money. Napster is now finally having to "pay" for their product. If they want to make money and stay in business they have no choice.
Now as far as copyright laws and DMCA go, I certainly agree that the copy right laws are in great need of reform (although the last major act aside from the DMCA was the Copyright act of 1978 not the 1700's)
I do think the RIAA has screwed more artists out of royalties than Napster ever will and oppose RIAA collecting internet royalties, much less charging 50% which is outrageous. I'd rather see a nonprofit org collect like ASCAP or BMI who typically charge between 12% and 17%.
I think fair use laws need to be more specific and created to protect the consumer and artist more than the corporations like they do now. The US should aslo work towards breaking the strangle hold that the big 5 have on the music industry.
Napster does to alot of good for the indy idustry and that's fine I won't argue, but if they are going to make money of the indy industry why not give some to the artist? is that too much to ask. I also disagree strongly with RIAA and assorted bands targeting napster users. I'd like to see RIAA kill over dead and napster do the right thing in paying artist there fair share. bottom line, if napster profits, why shouldn't the artist too?
sic transit gloria Napster (Score:2)
The Forces of Darkness have embraced crypto as a means to extend enforcement of arbitrary limitations for profit (moving it into Windows for example, with driver signing: DRM content will not play unless all your drivers have the crypto to prove they are ''legit''; Intel are pushing a design to encrypt the actual video data between the PC and the display unit) and things will get plenty worse and more restricted before they get better.
The only upside is that so far pushing the crypto into the eyes and ears of the users is not currently economically feasible, otherwise they'd be looking at that too; that means that ultimately the content can always be hijacked if a modest loss of quality is acceptable.
Math Sucks (Score:2)
That's $4.00 per person per year, figuring 50 million users (sure there are . .
That's $0.33 per month.
But they'll still never get it.
Metallica are now "independent" (Score:2)
I wonder what Metallica will say about their wanting 'control of distribution' argument now...
They'd apparently be in the $50 mil going to independent artists (the ones who own their own music).
All your hallucinogen [pineight.com] are belong to us.
Lets Be Real (Score:5)
2) Charging people for what they previously got for free on the internet won't work. It's been proven time and time again. Napster might be able to make this model work to some extent, but not in the sheer quantity needed to even approach payment on their settlement. At $9, they need a little under 2 million monthly subscriptions. At $5, they need a little under 4 million subscriptions. Those are big numbers for an internet subscription service.
3) There are free Napster alternatives. 'Nuff said.
4) Quality of content. If you're going to pay, you expect your download not to time out or mrHaX0r01 to not cut you off in the middle of the download because he's rebooting his machine. We put up with these inconviences now because it's free. If my phone company started disconnecting my calls in the middle of conversations I wouldn't be too happy. There is a level of service expected when you pay for something, and I don't believe they have that level of service to attain the subscriptions necessary.
Enjoy your Napster while you can. This settlement offer shows that Napster knows it lost and knows its royally screwed. There is very little chance that Napster can raise over $200 million a year profit to pay for this, and the record companies know that.
I think your missing the big picture. (Score:2)
They will attack those that are not napster, and the music company will do so as well. With that kind of subscriber base they are laying the foundation for music videos, movies, etc...Who do you think the movie industry will go to when compression gets good enough to push it over broadband? I would think they would goto napster, the guys that have the 50 million base allready in their backpocket.
If they get this they will become the next AOL of the internet, pushing it with the newest killer app to hit the market and sucking up the others as they go. This is only the start if they side this over on the music community.
Listen to your music, but what them become and empire.
Neck_of_the_Woods
Re:Never happen (Score:2)
WHOSE GOING TO PAY? YOU ARE ! WHY?? (Score:5)
Re:50 million users? (Score:5)
Re:Only $1.67 per user per month? (Score:5)
However, the RIAA isn't about to start admitting that napster for the time being probably is generating more cd sales than stealing them, but they would rather lose money and keep a stranglehold on the market rather than let that market drift away from them.
-Restil
Beginning of the end (Score:2)
I bet it ends up being a LOT more than 1.67 per.
$1.67 a month? I'd pay much more! (Score:2)
Re:50 million users? (Score:2)
--
OliverWillis.Com [oliverwillis.com]
You gotta wonder about Shawn.. (Score:3)
--
Re:Problem is it'll be "Napster II" with encryptio (Score:2)
Re:50 million users? (Score:5)
Unfortunately I've been unable to find any information about this "enhanced support." Does this mean I can't use Win/X11 Amp any more? My RIO? Anything else that uses MP3? They mention that it's enforced in the napster software, but the only real way to "enforce" it would be to make it unusable everywhere else, so does that mean that the nap. client is the only thing that can play these so called mp3s?
Like I said, I looked and found nothing about the tech, the background, or anything. Any links or ideas out there?
Also, while browsing the napster site looking for answers, I came accross this (stuff highlighted by me):
Did any one else notice these two little blurbs?
doesn't seem like enough money (Score:2)
Somehow, I don't think the Luddites will accept...
Re:probably not enough (Score:2)
They want total end-to-end control of the distribution and use of the content.
here's what I don't get... (Score:2)
If the music industry is losing sooooo much money to people pirating music, then why do all the big newspapers GIVE AWAY their news stories on their websites?
Ever heard of:
The Detroit News [detroitnews.com] (My hometown rag)
The London Times [thetimes.co.uk]
The New York Times [newyorktimes.com]
USA Today [usatoday.com]
The L.A. Times [latimes.com]
The Boston Globe [boston.com]
The list goes on and on.
It's obvious to me that these newspapers are generating their own revenue by advertising themselves. Music artists have it easy because the LISTENERS do most of the promotions when they rip/encode to MP3!!!
IMHO, this whole napster thing looks like one ingenious publicity stunt to sell MORE records.