Students refuse to buy a single song from Napster

geekdreams · July 9, 2005 10:33AM

Apparently, students at Rochester University aren't using the "free" Napster service provided to them by the school as much as people had hoped. This article, while pretty biased in favor of Apple/iTunes, is kinda funny if you hate the new Napster as much as I do:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/07...hester_survey/

IMO there's no way Napster can survive in a space where they're competing with Yahoo, MS, Wal-Mart, Target(?), etc. I'm generally against the music-rental idea, but I'd like to see Apple launch their own subscription service just to kill the cat once and for all.

ebby · July 9, 2005 6:19PM

I almost feel sorry for Napster

... almost.

I gotta blame Napster's DRM scheme/scam more than the company. I know they are trying hard, but IMO their plan was doomed from the start.

a_greer · July 9, 2005 7:21PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ebby

I almost feel sorry for Napster

... almost.

I gotta blame Napster's DRM scheme/scam more than the company. I know they are trying hard, but IMO their plan was doomed from the start.

Napsters DRM isnt napsters fault: they like everyone that isnt apple use WMA DRM, MS and the RIAA are in bed together on this. Apples Unfair play is the best out there and that is not saying much at all.

For the most part, I still use waerz, because as a broke (not poor, there is a differance) college student, I have a hard time feeling guilty over DLing tracks from people the likes of which are featured on MTV's Cribs. Many of the things that I DL are older stuff too, hard to find in print, some of which is finding its way to itunes but there is still a lot of stuff from Sinatra out there that isnt on ITms. the money share also pisses me off: if I were to buy a CD for say $15, the store gets $5 in markup, the record lable gets like $8, they spend $1 to make it and the artist gets $1, before agents and the IRS...that just doesnt seem right. Online music isnt much better, Apple, napster, et al get ~.10-.20, the record lable gets ~70-75 and the artist gets the .05-.10 left, frankly, I would rather give the artist like 0.50, him keeping .35, the service keeping .15 and the middle man would be gone, the artist could get more money, and the providers (given artist permission, which wouldnt be hard to get) would be free to loosen the damn DRM. that with the lower prices would make consumers happy, everybody wins

KILL THE MIDDLE MAN!!!! HE IS A THEIF!!!!!!

ebby · July 9, 2005 8:08PM

I think we are arguing on the same side here.

Napster had name brand recondition, potential and capability. They were forced a crappy hand of cards from the RIAA and Napster is trying to make the most of it. I don't think the RIAA ever intended them to succeed (same with ITMS). While Napster was weakened (recovering from legal threats and lawsuits), apple could still push its weight around and wiggled a deal from the RIAA that gave them a edge.

Still, DRM Sucks... Yadda, yadda... etc.

8)

jwink3101 · July 9, 2005 11:32PM

This article was very interesting to me. I am looking at schools and U or Rochester was one of the places i visited. During the tour, they told us all about the napster stuff and hyped it to no end. Now, i learn that most people do not like the service.

I love my iPod and much of my music is lega iTMS stuff. Still, i wouldn't mind seeing an iTMS subscription service but if that never happens i will most certainly survive

wingnut · July 10, 2005 11:57AM

Well, I predict that the Intel-macs will have DRM built into the hardware. Both Intel and AMD are being forced to travel down the DRM road, and I think they are planning to put it in hardware soon. I'm pretty sure Intel's newest chipset, 955 for dual cores, is DRM ready. Once Longhorn arrives, the final piece of the puzzle is in place, and windows will be fully DRM. Before you say it/think it, Apple will have to follow suit or risk getting sued by the RIAA and Hollywood. I don't know what this all will mean for Linux. It could get even uglier than it already is.

ebby · July 10, 2005 3:19PM

The intel chips do have DRM stuff. The question is will apple support this in OS X. There is obviously hardware-only protection that has nothing to do with the OS but will Apple implement some sort of trusted computing kind of carp. I like to think Jobs will fight for us against the *AA's.

If so, I'll be pushed to Linux and Old Macs. Customer loyalty only stretches so far...

wingnut · July 10, 2005 5:34PM

I don't think Apple will have a choice. The RIAA and company have lots of money, lots of lawyers, and lots of lobbying in Washington. I bet they will force Apple to do it "or else." Because of this, I can't help but wonder what it will do to linux. I think you will see some dissension, and who knows what the RIAA will do. That's why I think it will get really ugly. It's also why I don't mind owning a G5 system, even though Apple is shifting to Intel.

Also, you can't really blame Apple, MS, Intel, AMD, etc for any of this. Do you think any of them WANT to do this? They know it could negatively affect sales, and I don't think that any of them want to be the first to use DRM. AMD and Intel were told to start their DRM projects about 2 years ago. As you can see, they're in no rush to launch anything.

a_greer · July 10, 2005 9:27PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Wingnut

I don't think Apple will have a choice. The RIAA and company have lots of money, lots of lawyers, and lots of lobbying in Washington. I bet they will force Apple to do it "or else." Because of this, I can't help but wonder what it will do to linux. I think you will see some dissension, and who knows what the RIAA will do. That's why I think it will get really ugly. It's also why I don't mind owning a G5 system, even though Apple is shifting to Intel.

Also, you can't really blame Apple, MS, Intel, AMD, etc for any of this. Do you think any of them WANT to do this? They know it could negatively affect sales, and I don't think that any of them want to be the first to use DRM. AMD and Intel were told to start their DRM projects about 2 years ago. As you can see, they're in no rush to launch anything.

I don't understand why AMD, INTEL, MS,Apple et al couldn't just say FUCK YOU! GET LOST BITCHES!

Can someone who was old enough to have paid attention back then fill me in on how the book industry took cheap copiers and reasonably affordable desktop laser printers in the '80s?

jwink3101 · July 10, 2005 9:34PM

Quote:

Originally posted by a_greer

I don't understand why AMD, INTEL, MS,Apple et al couldn't just say FUCK YOU! GET LOST BITCHES!

Can someone who was old enough to have paid attention back then fill me in on how the book industry took cheap copiers and reasonably affordable desktop laser printers in the '80s?

Books are very different for a few reasons.

1)Tangibility - When people buy a book they feel like they are getting something and quality is better OEM. Music is just a bunch of 1 & 0's that [usually] produce a nice sound.

2) Distribution- Music is a lot easier to move than books would ever be

3) Consumption- people listen to a song a 1-10min. Books take hours and are rarley done continiously

4)Time - who has time to sit there and turn the page for book to be copied oncer while music you just leave and it can be copied an infinite number of times in a very short period (depending on Bandwidth)

geekdreams · July 11, 2005 12:37AM

Quote:

Originally posted by a_greer

I don't understand why AMD, INTEL, MS,Apple et al couldn't just say FUCK YOU! GET LOST BITCHES!

Because then there would be no music to sell on the iTMS, no movies or TV shows available on any upcoming video store, etc.

As I see it, DRM is a neccessary evil -- it doesn't do much to curb piracy, but it convinces the studios to license their stuff for online distribution.

mynamehere · July 11, 2005 11:34AM

I'm still a bit in the dark about DRM. What will it stop me from doing that I do now? rip DVD's using MacTheRipper? Copy MP3's (most of which I ripped from CD's) across my network?

ebby · July 11, 2005 5:09PM

It tries to stop you from ripping CD's/DVD's in the first place. The DRM on a DVD prevents you from copying it to your hard drive without a program that gets around the DRM like MacTheRipper. Same with some CD's that don't work in computers. iTunes DRM allows you to copy music over a network but that computer has to be authorized to play it.

wingnut · July 11, 2005 5:16PM

From what I understand, DRM is a hardware/software interaction that makes your PC unique. Any "protected" content you put on the machine can only be used/played on that sole machine. For example, you rip an MP3 to PC1, if you take that MP3 and move it over to PC2, your music software will refuse to play it. I think iPods already do something like this. If you plug an iPod into a new machine, it won't let you copy your iPod's songs over to the new computer. Instead, iTunes will ask if you would like to erase your iPod library and copy the new PC's library over. While this lets you have the PC's songs, it doesn't allow you to copy them to another PC. At least this is how I understand it to work. DRM PCs will follow the same line. The content must stay on the source PC, or it can't be played.

gene clean · July 11, 2005 5:28PM

What's the possibility of cracking/hacking this DRM?

ebby · July 11, 2005 6:48PM

#1: iTunes uses their own form of DRM. Wingnut is partially correct in his analyses of iPod as a form of DRM. iTunes also uses Fairplay, another DRM strategy, where purchased music is only playable on a limited number of authorized computers.

#2: There are hundreds, if not thousands, of DRM techniques out there. DVD's use CSS, CD's intentionally encode errors on the disk, HD-DVD will use some nasty-arse Goliath DRM that gives the MPAA the power to exclude devices that have been compromised. Bad news for anyone who uses DVD's in an unauthorized way. (note: unauthorized != illegal. This is a blatant circumvention of current copyright law to give the MPAA more power. Too much, IMO.)

#3: There is no spoon.

Gene Clean: It has already been cracked/hacked. Exhibit A Exhibit B

gene clean · July 11, 2005 7:04PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ebby

Gene Clean: It has already been cracked/hacked. Exhibit A Exhibit B

No, I mean the Intel/AMD chips that have DRM stuff in them.

wingnut · July 11, 2005 9:51PM

Hard to say. Like all computer obstacles, I imagine there will be limited success. I also imagine that the RIAA and MPAA will have a legal field day with a select few law breakers to set an example. However, I think DRM;s main goal is to do what WPA (activation) did for WindowsXP. WPA doesn't prevent all users from pirating windows (despite MS's bold claims), but it does prevent people from "causal copying" (ie, loan the disk to a half-dozen friends). I'm sure the initial goal of DRM is to put a drastic dent in the illegal copying of CDs/DVDs. Think about it, if DRM can cut illegal activity only in half, they should, in theory, make that money. While I bet they will probably get illegal copying down 80% or better, that doesn't necessarily mean people will break down and buy the CD/Movie. A lot of people just copy because they can, and most people certainly can't afford to pay for all of that questionably acquired content. While the industry won't see huge gains, they will see more money than they do now. I think the crippling of napster and Kazaa proved a big point, too.

What I think is totally crazy is that you can go to most developed Asian countries and buy Windows XP and 25 DVDs for $30. These products come in official looking packages, but they are all bootlegs. I believe I heard that close to 90% of all software in some of these nations is pirated! Illegal DVD bootlegs are everyday business. I can only imagine the nightmares of the MPAA when they think of the losses in that market. At least MS can take pride in the fact that these developing countries are getting hooked on Windows.

ebby · July 11, 2005 10:29PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Wingnut

Think about it, if DRM can cut illegal activity only in half, they should, in theory, make that money.

That is based on the horrible assumption that a every download replaces a legal purchase. This simply is not true. The hard part proving otherwise is that there is no accurate study or method of linking P2P activity to new purchases, while OTOH it can be blamed for dropping CD sales because, well, it's gotta be true. Right?

The recent "release" of Global Frequency on Bittorrent sets up a wonderful opportunity for real research on P2P networks because it resides entirely on the web. Unfortunately , it won't be explored. If the producers secretly released the complete season for sale on DVD before any mainstream advertisements begin it would be possible to link actual DVD sales to the word-of-mouth/advertising potential of P2P networks and therefore understand/stereotype a new demographic: The P2P user. Just like normal TV, some users would watch the pilot and hate it, while some would become fans.

EDIT: The post sounded a little mean so here is a smiley ->

midwinter · July 12, 2005 6:02AM

Quote:

Originally posted by a_greer

Can someone who was old enough to have paid attention back then fill me in on how the book industry took cheap copiers and reasonably affordable desktop laser printers in the '80s?

When I started college in 1990, it was not uncommon for us to go across the street to Kinko's to pick up our "readings packet," which sometimes included entire novels copied for us.

At the Uni where I teach now, they're NUTS about copyright protection of printed materials. I can only place a certain percentage of a text on reserve, and then I can only do that for a limited period of time. And THEN, I can't put it on reserve every semester.

I just scan the stuff and make a PDF for my students.

wingnut · July 12, 2005 6:43AM

Quote:

EDIT: The post sounded a little mean so here is a smiley

I'm not that thin-skinned. Anyway, you pulled me out of context. Read what i wrote after that sentance:

Quote:

While I bet they will probably get illegal copying down 80% or better, that doesn't necessarily mean people will break down and buy the CD/Movie. A lot of people just copy because they can, and most people certainly can't afford to pay for all of that questionably acquired content. While the industry won't see huge gains, they will see more money than they do now. I think the crippling of napster and Kazaa proved a big point, too.

I don't believe that everyone will start buying, but I'm sure the RIAA and MPAA are suggesting otherwise to get the legislation they need.

Students refuse to buy a single song from Napster

Comments