Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Napster Being Shut Down

Soulskill posted about 2 years ago | from the seth-green-unavailable-for-comment dept.

Businesses 213

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

cancel ×

213 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Without Napster we'd still be buying all CD's (5, Insightful)

elrous0 (869638) | about 2 years ago | (#38239614)

The music industry had to be dragged kicking, clawing, and screaming into the 21st century. If it weren't for Napster and iTunes we'd all still be driving down to the record store to buy $15 CD's, just to get the one or two songs you actually want and the 10 other songs that are complete filler. It's sad that Napster had to be a sacrifice on the road to the industry finally waking up and realizing that people actually want digital music and they want it at a reasonable per-song price--that we'd had enough of getting gouged under the old LP/CD system.

Of course, they're still grumbling about it--and many of them still want to slap DRM on their music. But at least Napster (and later Kazaa) were there to scare the industry and make them realize that people want to download digital music, and iTunes was there to show them that, yes, you can still make money off it (but we're not buying your overpriced albums anymore for one song).

Of course, I'm sure the arrogant stoner at my local record store hates this, as he no longer gets to snort at my record choices and tell me about how *HIS* taste is so much more hip than mine.

Re:Without Napster we'd still be buying all CD's (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38239636)

Except now you're paying $15 for a digital copy, and $10 for the CD, or $1.99 for that "just one track".

Re:Without Napster we'd still be buying all CD's (4, Insightful)

ackthpt (218170) | about 2 years ago | (#38239826)

Except now you're paying $15 for a digital copy, and $10 for the CD, or $1.99 for that "just one track".

I am completely fine with $1.99 for one track, if the rest of the album isn't of any interest. I'm an old Album Rock dude, but will be among the first to recognize how many one/two hit wonders there have been where I won't want the whole CD.

Re:Without Napster we'd still be buying all CD's (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38240774)

I am completely fine with $1.99 for one track, if the rest of the album isn't of any interest. I'm an old Album Rock dude, but will be among the first to recognize how many one/two hit wonders there have been where I won't want the whole CD.

Suppose in the (not too distant) future, next to no one ops to buy entire CDs vs. a single track. Won't all artists then be one or two hit wonders?

Re:Without Napster we'd still be buying all CD's (2)

jaymz666 (34050) | about 2 years ago | (#38239652)

What's a local record store?
Even without download services, sites like AMazon, CDNow, Music Boulevard and their ilk were eating away at the local record store business.

Re:Without Napster we'd still be buying all CD's (5, Funny)

elrous0 (869638) | about 2 years ago | (#38239754)

I'm not sure where the arrogant stoner went after the local record store closed. But if I had to guess, I would imagine he's in his Mom's basement right now listening to a post-pre-punk ska glam fusion band on vinyl and longing for the days when he could spend all day telling customers how much better his tastes were than theirs.

A punk snob? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38239952)

Forgive my doubts, but I can't imagine a drunk hobo punk being a music snob. Real music snobs listen to progressive (or worse, some random electronic subsubgenre noone has ever heard about).

Re:A punk snob? (1)

ackthpt (218170) | about 2 years ago | (#38240088)

Forgive my doubts, but I can't imagine a drunk hobo punk being a music snob. Real music snobs listen to progressive (or worse, some random electronic subsubgenre noone has ever heard about).

That's rather narrowminded. I personally know of at least one former musician who has an alcohol dependency problem and lives on the street. I'm certain he turns his nose up at certain "music" as it isn't his cuppa or has inferior instrumentation. He favors accoustic over electric guitar.

Re:A punk snob? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38240234)

(or worse, some random electronic subsubgenre noone has ever heard about).

That would be skweee.

Re:Without Napster we'd still be buying all CD's (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38240768)

Video game stores is where he went... But those are getting the same thing done to them...

Re:Without Napster we'd still be buying all CD's (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38240320)

What's a local record store?

It is something to do with Brian Wilson. I guess it is where you can get a Double XL Chalupa.

Re:Without Napster we'd still be buying all CD's (4, Insightful)

masternerdguy (2468142) | about 2 years ago | (#38239720)

If your smart you grab the CD and rip it, then store the CD in a safe place. You save money and have no DRM.

Re:Without Napster we'd still be buying all CD's (5, Insightful)

jaymz666 (34050) | about 2 years ago | (#38239762)

And a backup! Oh, and liner notes and pretty pictures.
Try selling a used download at the local Half Price Books & Music.

Re:Without Napster we'd still be buying all CD's (4, Insightful)

kiwimate (458274) | about 2 years ago | (#38240510)

This. I haven't lived in New Zealand for a few years, so I don't know if Real Groovy Records on Queen Street in Auckland still exists. But it was amazing. A room full of used albums, many of which were genuine rarities that you couldn't find anywhere else.

And that includes on-line. There are albums that I cannot buy on-line. The mega-stores don't carry them. They're not available from the artist directly. But I can sometimes find them at the local used music store.

Or I could, before they went out of business because nobody buys albums any more. I do care about the mega-stores going out of business, because there are people who work there who are without a job (I'm talking about the high school kids who had a weekend job there, that kind of person). But I care more about the independent shop that was started with someone's life savings because he loved music. He's the guy who'd find the rarities. And he's the guy who lost his life savings.

Re:Without Napster we'd still be buying all CD's (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38239842)

Unless you bought a "music disc" from Sony.

Re:Without Napster we'd still be buying all CD's (1)

lennier1 (264730) | about 2 years ago | (#38240260)

Makes me miss the old days where you'd use a modified driver for your disc drive to gain direct access to the tracks (copy them straight as WAV files).

Re:Without Napster we'd still be buying all CD's (4, Insightful)

icebraining (1313345) | about 2 years ago | (#38239998)

If you're smart you download that rip and buy some merchandising from the artist. You save money, have no DRM, probably pay more to the artist and get some nice t-shirt or similar besides the music.

Re:Without Napster we'd still be buying all CD's (0)

CmdrPony (2505686) | about 2 years ago | (#38240276)

Should we do the same with DRM software?

If we go that route, then I could take Ubuntu and wrap it up in proprietary code. After that I donate to some Linux programmers who worked on some small part of it ("but Canonical just steals from the poor coders!") and it's justified!

Of course we can forget about the other people who worked on Ubuntu, just like we can forget about the other people who made that artists album happen.

Re:Without Napster we'd still be buying all CD's (1)

icebraining (1313345) | about 2 years ago | (#38240588)

If we go that route, then I could take Ubuntu and wrap it up in proprietary code. After that I donate to some Linux programmers who worked on some small part of it ("but Canonical just steals from the poor coders!") and it's justified!

Sure, that's perfectly legal and fine with me. Companies distribute Linux wrapped up in proprietary code all the time, so what?

Re:Without Napster we'd still be buying all CD's (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about 2 years ago | (#38240752)

Go ahead. Steal you a copy of Ubuntu. Wrap it up in whatever dressing you care to. Lot's of people have already done so, and given it names like Mint. Knock yourself out. As for the "proprietary" bit - better cover all your bases. The minute you begin SELLING your version of Ubuntu, the entire world is going to take notice.

Maybe that's where you're confused. People who "steal" soundtracks, then resell them for profit are an entirely different breed, apart from the common "pirate" who downloads some music for personal use.

Re:Without Napster we'd still be buying all CD's (0)

CmdrPony (2505686) | about 2 years ago | (#38240836)

What about if I don't sell it, but give it away for free? I don't profit from it. Yet, I don't give away the source code like I'm supposed to. But as I donated directly to some Linux coders, that it makes it ok right?

Re:Without Napster we'd still be buying all CD's (1)

DigiShaman (671371) | about 2 years ago | (#38240728)

If your smart you grab the used pre-2000s era CD and rip it. Many CDs sold after 2000 have undergone new "remastering" that have suffered because of the loudness war. So let me repeat that. You're source CDs should either be from a flea market or other pre-owned music store. All other newer CDs may burn in a ball of fire. God willing.

Re:Without Napster we'd still be buying all CD's (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38239752)

If you only want to hear 2 out of 12 songs on an album then you must listen to some shitty bands.

Re:Without Napster we'd still be buying all CD's (4, Insightful)

elrous0 (869638) | about 2 years ago | (#38239834)

Well, there are bands whose albums you buy and then there are bands who make one or two decent songs and then sleepwalk through the rest of the recording sessions. At least now I have an option to treat them differently.

Re:Without Napster we'd still be buying all CD's (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38239854)

Consider how many albums have 12 songs and only one of them is ever aired on the radio. Sometimes that one is a typical indicator of the content of the album, often it's the only track most people can listen to more than once without wanting to kill someone. After realizing that, consider how bad the songs on the radio are that don't inspire you to consider looking for tha album.

Sure there's good music, and good musicians, but there's a whole lot of drek that is much more advertised.

Re:Without Napster we'd still be buying all CD's (1)

ackthpt (218170) | about 2 years ago | (#38240334)

Consider how many albums have 12 songs and only one of them is ever aired on the radio. Sometimes that one is a typical indicator of the content of the album, often it's the only track most people can listen to more than once without wanting to kill someone. After realizing that, consider how bad the songs on the radio are that don't inspire you to consider looking for tha album.

Sure there's good music, and good musicians, but there's a whole lot of drek that is much more advertised.

One great thing about last.fm listen to see if you like something, before deciding upon album or only a few songs. This is rather how it was back in the old days of records stores, where you could actually listen to tracks to decide if you warranted the album worth buying. May have one track, which was so exceptional (beyond just pop appeal) warranting purchase of the album. May have several tracks which are very good warranting purchase of the album.

I'm not really a fan of Amazon's approach to listen to a little sample, only useful for confirming it is the tune I'm looking for or particular mix. Most of the rather large music collection I have was purchased upon faith that the whole CD/album was worth getting. Quite often it has been so. There are tunes I really like that may be very obscure to those who only follow Top-40 on radio. I'm probably one of the few you will hear on the freeway in Summer with his windows down and Louis Jordan cranked way up, the whole CD rather than just one tune.

Re:Without Napster we'd still be buying all CD's (1)

Kleen13 (1006327) | about 2 years ago | (#38240792)

Arrogant Stoner! We were wondering where you went.. How's your Mom?

Re:Without Napster we'd still be buying all CD's (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38239760)

What artists are you listening to that can only produce 1-2 songs per album that you'd actually want to purchase?

Re:Without Napster we'd still be buying all CD's (5, Funny)

masternerdguy (2468142) | about 2 years ago | (#38239778)

Probably nickelback. They're good as mass production.

Re:Without Napster we'd still be buying all CD's (3, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 2 years ago | (#38239832)

Yeah, they just record twelve versions of the same song for each album. I swear that I cannot tell the difference between any Nickelback song. It's like if the Beatles only recorded dozens of variations of She Loves You.

Re:Without Napster we'd still be buying all CD's (2)

Kozz (7764) | about 2 years ago | (#38240576)

Probably nickelback. They're good as mass production.

I initially read that as ass production. Picking nits, I guess.

Re:Without Napster we'd still be buying all CD's (2)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about 2 years ago | (#38240810)

If it cost a penny to see a nickelback performance, I'd want a nickel back. I hear them on the radio from time to time. I can't help thinking that they have a sound that COULD be worth a lot. But - it just isn't worth much. Like MightyMartian, I find it difficult to differentiate between one nickelback title and another. They are a cut above rap, but only a cut.

Re:Without Napster we'd still be buying all CD's (4, Insightful)

elrous0 (869638) | about 2 years ago | (#38239850)

Anything my girlfriend likes.

Re:Without Napster we'd still be buying all CD's (3, Informative)

DogDude (805747) | about 2 years ago | (#38239816)

Speak for yourself. Instead of buying overpriced, poor quality, DRM'ed music, I DO go to my local CD store, buy $10-$15 CD's, rip them for my own use, AND I contribute to my local economy.

Re:Without Napster we'd still be buying all CD's (3, Funny)

elrous0 (869638) | about 2 years ago | (#38239900)

AND I contribute to my local economy.

Buying from my local record store was only helping keep the local weed dealer in business. But to each his own.

Re:Without Napster we'd still be buying all CD's (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38240212)

You don't seem to understand the economics of dealing weed. I used to make several hundred dollars per day just dealing to friends; selling records would have been a pain in the ass and cut into my profit margin.

Re:Without Napster we'd still be buying all CD's (2)

heinousjay (683506) | about 2 years ago | (#38240838)

They weren't your friends, you just had weed.

Re:Without Napster we'd still be buying all CD's (2)

similar_name (1164087) | about 2 years ago | (#38240598)

I DO go to my local CD store, buy $10-$15 CD's, rip them for my own use, AND I contribute to my local economy.

I've never understood how buying anything that is not produced locally benefits the local economy. The money was already in the local economy (you had it). When you buy a CD some of it stays local and some of it goes off to the record company some where else. The net result is that money is removed from the local economy. Now if you purchase from local bands that produce their own CDs that would keep the money local. Even better if someone from a nearby town comes over and buys from your local band.

Re:Without Napster we'd still be buying all CD's (3, Informative)

Pope (17780) | about 2 years ago | (#38239934)

If it weren't for Napster and iTunes we'd all still be driving down to the record store to buy $15 CD's, just to get the one or two songs you actually want and the 10 other songs that are complete filler..

They really shot themselves in the foot with the whole CD single thing, that was gouging pure and simple. I still have an old '45 from 1980 with the original price tag still on it: CAN$1.49. That was when LPs were 40 minutes or less with 8 songs, going for around CAN$9.99.

Re:Without Napster we'd still be buying all CD's (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38240730)

If it weren't for Napster and iTunes we'd all still be driving down to the record store to buy $15 CD's, just to get the one or two songs you actually want and the 10 other songs that are complete filler..

They really shot themselves in the foot with the whole CD single thing, that was gouging pure and simple. I still have an old '45 from 1980 with the original price tag still on it: CAN$1.49. That was when LPs were 40 minutes or less with 8 songs, going for around CAN$9.99.

Hmm? I'm not sure what inflation was in Canada, but pretending those are US prices converts them to $3.89 and $26.08 in 2011 dollars. So, you're saying prices have fallen significantly.

Re:Without Napster we'd still be buying all CD's (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38239962)

yes, god forbid you should ever go outside and interact with other actual humans...

Re:Without Napster we'd still be buying all CD's (2)

elrous0 (869638) | about 2 years ago | (#38240232)

Hey, I'll have you know I've hiked every mountain in Skyrim.

Re:Without Napster we'd still be buying all CD's (1)

rednip (186217) | about 2 years ago | (#38240064)

I'm sure the arrogant stoner at my local record store hates this, as he no longer gets to snort at my record choices and tell me about how *HIS* taste is so much more hip than mine.

When in 'reality' we know that your taste is so much more hip than anyones. I'll bet that that they see you growl at the their suggestions seemingly out of habit.

However, were you even alive in the days when there really was a record store culture? It wasn't the internet that killed off the independent record store, but the chain retailer. Well that and CDs, because as you didn't have to buy your tenth copy of 'Dark Side of the Moon' once it couldn't as easily wear out.

Re:Without Napster we'd still be buying all CD's (5, Funny)

elrous0 (869638) | about 2 years ago | (#38240262)

When in 'reality' we know that your taste is so much more hip than anyones.

I listen to bands so niche that even they haven't heard their music.

Without Napster we'd still be using FTP (2)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | about 2 years ago | (#38240152)

People were downloading music long before Naptster...

Re:Without Napster we'd still be buying all CD's (2, Funny)

mat catastrophe (105256) | about 2 years ago | (#38240210)

If you were buying albums with 1 good song for every 5 bad ones, then yes, the local store's stoner's taste is probably better than yours.

Re:Without Napster we'd still be buying all CD's (2)

aussiedood (577993) | about 2 years ago | (#38240246)

... to buy $15 CD's, just to get the one or two songs you actually want and the 10 other songs that are complete filler...

I always preferred buying the whole album and still do. But if you bought a whole CD for one song, more fool you. There were these things called singles, they've been around since music became commercialized. I don't get why people perpetuate the myth that individual song purchase was bought about by the digital age!

Re:Without Napster we'd still be buying all CD's (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38240294)

The music industry had to be dragged kicking, clawing, and screaming into the 21st century. If it weren't for Napster and iTunes we'd all still be driving down to the record store to buy $15 CD's, just to get the one or two songs you actually want and the 10 other songs that are complete filler. It's sad that Napster had to be a sacrifice on the road to the industry finally waking up and realizing that people actually want digital music and they want it at a reasonable per-song price--that we'd had enough of getting gouged under the old LP/CD system.

I wouldn't really single out Napster. It was simply the biggest widely known distribution channel on the internet, and it was quite frankly, utter crap. Unreliable and a bad idea as such for any file transmission, including that of illegal content. They got too big and got burned at the stake.

Re:Without Napster we'd still be buying all CD's (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38240308)

It's great having so many talented new bands releasing hip, exciting music and trying to outdo each other, just like in the old days.

Oh, they aren't? Well, at least we get to own copies of the older stuff at a very reasonable price.

Re:Without Napster we'd still be buying all CD's (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38240414)

I miss audiogalaxy. You could search FTP sites so you could find more than just mp3s

Re:Without Napster we'd still be buying all CD's (1)

SCHecklerX (229973) | about 2 years ago | (#38240468)

I see nothing wrong with having to still buy CDs. The prices of them were the problem. Sell a CD for $5 or less, and people would have bought them. The tools to rip your own collection then would have evolved to be easier/faster/better. Cdex on windoze isn't too bad. Personally I wrote some perl scripts to do this long long ago, and they still serve me well today .

You then have
1) uncompressed masters
2) the ability to re-encode as technologies evolve
3) the ability to put the stuff on ANY device you want

Personally most of my music listening is streaming rather than my own collection nowadays anyway, but the above would have been better, IMO, then online downloads. I want control over the things that I purchase.

You don't need anything like i-tunes, either. Good players will properly organize and index your collection themselves. Just drag/drop over the network or USB. Rockbox, for example, excels at managing music without your having to do anything but properly tag your music (see ripping tools above).

Re:Without Napster we'd still be buying all CD's (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38240526)

Emphasis on 'reasonable per-song price'. I'm sorry, $2 is not reasonable. $1 is not reasonable in my mind. Knock it down to 25 cents or so, and I'm sure they'll see sales skyrocket. Right now there's a ton of torrenting, because people don't WANT to pay CD prices for something non-physical for a best-of album or whatever. Of course, many people will always torrent for free regardless, so those people can be removed from these equations since they'd never purchase the song no matter what... no lost sales with them one way or another.

But the prices they currently have are literally equivelant to buying a CD if you buy every track. Or higher priced. Serious to god, there's zero post production CD stamping, zero (for all intents and purposes, ignoring of course electricity needed to copy 6 megs of data, etc) cost to creating multiple copies. Why am I paying the same price as it was to get a plastic CD case, printed album art (multiple pages typically), and the physical CD? The cost of ALL of that is gone, except perhaps the initial outlay of the cover art which is usually embedded in the mp3 for some stupid reason). Without all that, the price should be... y'know... lower.

But that'd be asking them to be reasonable.

Now I'm not unreasonable. I'm not one of the ones who thinks all mp3s should be free. It'd be nice, but I'm not a dreamer like that.

But it's give and take. You can't have all the money, and we get none of the added benefits we used to have (case, album art, cd, etc). Drop the price, I'll start buying.

Until such time, screw you, you're just losing my sale by being unreasonable.

And I'm not one to think the band should get zero money either for their work. That's why 99% of their money should come from their day job, aka: playing live shows. I went to a concert a few weeks ago, bought a shirt and some pins, and even donated some extra money to the band's tip box type thing (since it's somewhat rare for them to be able to tour abroad, I help out how I can). But they actually TOUR for their money. Never mind getting free money for the rest of your and your children's lives because of one good CD in the 70's or whatever.

Re:Without Napster we'd still be buying all CD's (0)

kiwimate (458274) | about 2 years ago | (#38240608)

$2 is not reasonable. $1 is not reasonable in my mind. Knock it down to 25 cents or so, and I'm sure they'll see sales skyrocket

Good heavens, you're right. Because there's no support infrastructure, supply chain, or any overhead to support.

there's zero post production CD stamping

Oh thank heavens you clarified this. And here the entire rest of the planet was mistakenly budgeting for things like machines, capital investment and depreciation, maintenance, buildings, etc. Silly buggers.

That's why 99% of their money should come from their day job, aka: playing live shows.

Right. Because writing songs, editing them, and recording them takes no time whatsoever. That's free.

Re:Without Napster we'd still be buying all CD's (1)

FunkyELF (609131) | about 2 years ago | (#38240548)

Steve Jobs did not change the music industry, Napster did

Re:Without Napster we'd still be buying all CD's (1)

geekmux (1040042) | about 2 years ago | (#38240720)

...Of course, they're still grumbling about it--and many of them still want to slap DRM on their music.

While I'm certainly not standing on the side of MPAA/RIAA here, the reason for DRM is very simple and straightforward from their point of view, as a means to keep the product distribution legitimate and ensure a revenue stream and profitable business model. Yes, I know that "profit" can be demonized here as we all listen to the 1% rapping about the glory of being the 1%, but try and draw an agreeable line between "profitable" and "greedy" with ANY business...it's not that easy, as you'll always find people who will bitch about anything priced higher than "free".

And of course the irony of us bitching about things like DRM is you have to wonder how many businesses today would have gone the way of Napster had it NOT been for some sort of electronic countermeasure to prohibit (or at least deter) theft and protect their revenue source enough to stay operational.

For me, it's not that big of a deal for a much simpler reason. Most music is absolute crap these days(autotune didn't help matters), so it makes it much easier to dust off older CDs to enjoy. Or perhaps even go vinyl, and improve the sound quality even more.

Re:Without Napster we'd still be buying all CD's (1)

bennomatic (691188) | about 2 years ago | (#38240804)

It's sad that Napster had to be a sacrifice on the road to the industry finally waking up...

I agree with your general points, although I carry no emotional attachment to the service. I'm thinking of a football metaphor: Napster was the lead offensive blocker; iTunes Music Store was the running back that established the ground game. Amazon, Google Music and any number of other services are the wide receivers who are now able to come into play.

I'm sure that some people would disagree with what services played what roles, and I don't feel strongly enough about it to argue the details, but my main point is that everyone has their role. Napster, at least under that name, was never going to become the main player in the mainstream music industry. But that's OK, I'm sure all the key players from that service are doing fine.

Napster was the Facebook of our generation (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38239632)

And won't be missed for the same reasons.

Who cares ? (5, Insightful)

mbone (558574) | about 2 years ago | (#38239638)

Really, who cares ? The original Napster is long gone; this is just a corporate entity that bought the name.

Re:Who cares ? (0)

ArhcAngel (247594) | about 2 years ago | (#38239828)

Actually it just forked and became Limewire, Bearshare, etc.

Re:Who cares ? (1)

blueg3 (192743) | about 2 years ago | (#38240270)

That's Gnutella. The Napster protocol is now largely unused. (At the time it was shut down, there were tools to redirect the client to different central servers, but that's no longer really popular.) The Gnutella protocol, on the other hand, is still used by a wide variety of clients, including Limewire, Frostwire, and Bearshare.

Re:Who cares ? (1)

rec9140 (732463) | about 2 years ago | (#38240532)

"The Gnutella protocol, on the other hand, is still used by a wide variety of clients, including Limewire, Frostwire, and Bearshare."

Frostwire ate itself at a recent version , 5.x branch, and is Torrent only now. Many persons have refused to upgrade due to this and are using the 4.x branch instead.

It was the best all round P2P client for Linux.

Bad move on their part, but too late now.

Re:Who cares ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38240004)

I do, Napster was the best option for streaming music because:
1. Doesn't require a facebook account to signup (Spotify requires a facebook account to signup, I won't do that)
2. Best mobile app (I had many issues with the Rhapsody app)
3. Most variety of music (except Spotify)
4. Able to install on more than 1 mobile device without paying extra (Rhapsody requires you to register mobile devices before you can sign in with said mobile device, default limit is 1 device. Pay $5 for 2 extra, lame.)

Napster = Rhapsody = Spotify = Rdio

iNapster (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38239644)

Add an i in front of the name. Boom, that changes everything - instant sales.

Re:iNapster (1)

ksd1337 (1029386) | about 2 years ago | (#38240168)

The "i" of this decade is the "e" of the '90s.

morality (-1, Flamebait)

masternerdguy (2468142) | about 2 years ago | (#38239648)

Cue defense of music/software piracy in 3....2....1...

morality of nerds.. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38239682)

Apparently copyright is only important when GPL'd or other open-source software is infringed upon.

Re:morality (1)

Anonymous Psychopath (18031) | about 2 years ago | (#38239706)

Cue defense of music/software piracy in 3....2....1...

Why should I pay when self-delusional bullshit rationalizations cost nothing?

Re:morality (-1, Troll)

masternerdguy (2468142) | about 2 years ago | (#38239746)

Because when someone steals from the open source community its a sin but stealing from businesses is cool. I love slashdot.

Re:morality (4, Informative)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 2 years ago | (#38239878)

We are talking about a business here that has regularly ripped off its own artists. I keep up to date on Robert Fripp's struggles with UMG/Universal. They just do whatever they want, and when he demands accounting information and information on how songs that he never gave permission to be placed on download services ended up there, he basically enters that evil realm of lawyer/accountant double-talk.

However bad music piracy may be, the biggest pirates of them all have always been the record companies. They'll even try to steal of big name acts. Both Pink Floyd and the Beatles have had to go to court to retrieve royalties or to enforce contractual requirements.

Re:morality (1)

masternerdguy (2468142) | about 2 years ago | (#38240038)

If you really hate them don't buy their products. But that doesn't mean you can steal them. Hell, you can go make your own damn music and post it on Magnatune or Jamendo (which is the biggest threat to record companies anyway).

Re:morality (2)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 2 years ago | (#38240158)

I'm not trying to justify piracy. I'm trying to point out that it has always struck me as the height of hypocrisy for record companies to bemoan piracy when they've been stealing from artists for years. The same goes for the movie industry, where Hollywood "accounting" would most likely, in any other industry, lead to lengthy prison sentences for embezzlement.

Re:morality (1)

DeathFromSomewhere (940915) | about 2 years ago | (#38240140)

That doesn't give you the freedom to take whatever you want from them.

Re:morality (1)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | about 2 years ago | (#38240284)

Good thing he's not taking anything, then.

Re:morality (2)

icebraining (1313345) | about 2 years ago | (#38240160)

Copyright infringement != stealing. In neither case.

But, GPL infringement is often for profit, while file sharing isn't. You can be sure that many people that defend file sharing won't agree with making money from it.

Re:morality (0)

kiwimate (458274) | about 2 years ago | (#38240434)

Copyright infringement != stealing. In neither case.

Semantics. And so what? Just because one phrase isn't functionally equivalent to another doesn't make it any less wrong, illegal, and/or immoral/amoral.

But, GPL infringement is often for profit, while file sharing isn't.

Ah, now we're into the justification phase. Why talk about file sharing when we started with copyright infringement? Copyright infringement definitely is about profit. You get something for free instead of paying out $15 for it - you profit.

You can be sure that many people that defend file sharing won't agree with making money from it.

Because some things are only slightly wrong. As long as there's something worse that you're not doing, that makes your crime/law breaking kind of trivial and that's easy to morph into "it's really okay", right?

I love the defenses on Slashdot. People seem to have this Robin Hood mentality, in much the same way Anonymous stealing from banks to give to charity does. Either that, or they shrug and say "the artists don't get much profit" and thereby defend ripping them off of what little profit they might see. Unless all pirates/copyright infringers/whatever you want to call yourself to make yourself feel better do the right (?) thing and send some money directly to the artist. As has been suggested/stated on this site many, many times.

Re:morality (1, Insightful)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | about 2 years ago | (#38239770)

And then cue defense of copyrights/patents in 3...2...1...

Anyone who says anything that disagrees with my opinion is just delusional. I'm the only correct one!

The Real Question is.... (2)

apcullen (2504324) | about 2 years ago | (#38239658)

How did they stay in business as long as they did?

Goodnight, sweet prince (1)

unsanitary999 (2482414) | about 2 years ago | (#38239672)

Rhapsody's picking them up. I'm sure Napster will be JUST FINE.

Napster??? (1)

courteaudotbiz (1191083) | about 2 years ago | (#38239716)

I didn't know that Napster still existed...

2001 called. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38239722)

It wants its news back.

No need to be illegal any more (3, Interesting)

sandytaru (1158959) | about 2 years ago | (#38239738)

I'm happy with my free podcasts. Over a gigabyte of fresh, free music weekly, and the artists putting out the podcasts/radio shows encourageyou to download them. ("Put it in your playlist and listen to it nonstop for the rest of the week" Above& Beyond chimed in a few weeks ago during "Trance Around the World.")

Pioneers have it rough (1)

ackthpt (218170) | about 2 years ago | (#38239740)

Columbia PC was the first to do battle to defend their right to manufacture PC clones. Don't hear much of them now, do you?

I wonder what they'll do with the Cat with headphones logo.

Repost (5, Funny)

Joe Jordan (453607) | about 2 years ago | (#38239742)

Come on guys, this was posted 11 years ago [slashdot.org] now.

Re:Repost (2)

socrplayr813 (1372733) | about 2 years ago | (#38240108)

Napster, as it stood back then, is long dead. The Napster being discussed now is (was?) a music store that was formed from the ashes of the old music-sharing service. The second sentence of the summary even explains it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napster [wikipedia.org]

How you people get informative mods, I'll never understand.

Re:Repost (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38240280)

Whoooosh

Re:Repost (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38240382)

at least 11 years before a repost is better than the norm around here.......

The Italian Job (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38239876)

I guess the guy from the The Italian Job can have the name: http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0006115/quotes

Re:The Italian Job (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38240070)

lyle: And then he's just the media darling... He's on the cover of all the magazines, I should of been on the cover of Wired Magazine. You know what he said? He said he named it "Napster" because it was his nickname because of the nappy hair under the hat. But he, it's because I was NAPPING when he STOLE it from me! He didn't even graduate!
Handsome Rob: I think it's time to move on, don't you? They shut him down, I wish they would do the same to you.

Social network (2)

goldgin (1218596) | about 2 years ago | (#38239924)

At least it will be remembered via "The social network". I was feeling quite old when my highschool students responded "napster?" while mentioning it in computing class until recently.

Good nite sweet prince. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38240026)

Whether you loved it or hated it you have to admit that it changed the landscape of music and the internet. Good nite sweet prince.

I have this strong feeling... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38240162)

Of Deja Vu...

Napster died long time ago (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38240348)

The company that is being shut down now shares only the name with the old Napster. The old Napster died long time ago.

Short history of digital music services:
1. Illegal stuff
Napster->Gnutella->eDonkey->Kazaa->Audiogalaxy->LimeWire->iMesh->BitTorrent->allofmp3.com->grooveshark

2. Legal stuff
mp3.com->eMusic->Pressplay->MusicNet->Listen.com->Rhapsody->Yahoo Music->iTunes->Amazon MP3->Zune->Pandora->Spotify->Rdio->Google Music

Re:Napster died long time ago (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38240462)

BTW, I was a Napster subscriber mostly because of the $15/3 months plan where you got to keep 15 songs. Rhapsody doesn't offer that so I did not make the transition to Rhapsody.

I'm sick anyway of these corporate acquisitions where customers are being herded from one company to another with a worst deal.

There's Always: +4, Seditios (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38240480)

W.A.S.T.E.

Yours In Novosibirsk,
K. Trout

I wonder (1)

kimvette (919543) | about 2 years ago | (#38240560)

I wonder if they will bring "ded kitty" back?

The first time Napster died:

http://news.dmusic.com/article/5385 [dmusic.com]

Audiogalaxy........ (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38240590)

Before its' time...

https://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2002/6/21/171321/675

Everybody knows... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38240650)

...It was named napster by the lying thief that stole it from the original author while he was napping!

Y&uo Fail It.. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#38240702)

Taking all bets! (1)

MacGyver2210 (1053110) | about 2 years ago | (#38240790)

I am curious when we're going to see the story "All corporations in North America now owned by Exxon-Mobil-Time Warner-Comcast-Microsoft-Clear Channel-AT&T-Verizon-Bank of America". It's inevitable if someone doesn't stop the rampant "I'll just buy my competition" strategy.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?