response 8 of 134:

Feb 7 23:49 UTC 2001

Ok.  Are you ready?  Here goes.  I just received a phone call from an 
authoritative source (i.e. a napster employee) who gave me some 
definitive information:

1) There is NO definite schedule for the redesign/reimplementation of 
Napster.  The July date mentioned is hopeful, but that's all.

2) Bertelsmann's millions were designated specifically for the 
development of redevelopment of Napster, and BMG has agreed to drop its 
suit when the new system goes online.

3) There is a Q&A on Napsters webpage, at 
http://www.napster.com/pressroom/qanda.html



Unfortunately, I was totally unprepared for this phone call, and what I 
was actually hoping for was that someone there would join in the 
discussion directly, so I didn't get any real zinger questions in, but I 
assure you that my source is legitimate and firsthand.

response 10 of 134:

Feb 8 03:54 UTC 2001

#8> Your source may be legitimate. So is the BMG exec. The legitimate sources
are not in concord.

response 12 of 134:

Feb 8 05:25 UTC 2001

(I think brighn completely misread aaron.  The "Pizza Kids" aaron refered to
are NOT the folks stealing copyrighted music via Napster.  They are the
authors of the software systems various dot-coms were built on.  They didn't
steal anything.)

response 14 of 134:

Feb 8 14:48 UTC 2001

What is wrong with creating Napster?

response 16 of 134:

Feb 8 16:38 UTC 2001

Your problem appears to be with the use of the program, not the program 
itself. Do you actually believe that there can be no legitimate use for 
a program like Napster? Do you actually believe that programs like 
Napster should not be created?

response 18 of 134:

Feb 8 20:57 UTC 2001

#16: "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." The evolution of that style
of rhetoric. Yes, there are legitimate uses for assault weapons. Yes, I think
that assault weapons should be legal. No, I don't think producers of assault
weapons should be exonerated of all responsibility on the grounds that there
are legitimate uses.

don't tell me the creator of Napster was sitting around his dorm room one day
thinking, "Gee, I sure wish there was a decent way for independent musicians
to share their music with the world without having to prostitute themselves
to the RIAA." No, more likely, the thought was more akin to, "Gee, wouldn't
it be neat to connect up people's computers through the Net so we could all
swap music, because it's just so expensive in the store." [I'm not going to
say that the first thought didn't enter his mind at all, but I'd be willing
to wager that if it did, it was an afterthought or a bonus to the latter
thought.]

response 20 of 134:

Feb 8 21:04 UTC 2001

I guess I should add this: I was speaking, specifically, with regard to 
your response to the comments I entered. But to be fair, I don't mean to
 criticize your focus on Napster in an item devoted to Napster. ;-)

response 22 of 134:

Feb 8 22:47 UTC 2001

However, you responded to that post as if the entire post were about 
Napster, when quite obviously it was not. And you continue to do so.

response 24 of 134:

Feb 8 23:55 UTC 2001

Don't forget to demonstrate that you are a true Grexer, by entering
gratuitous, hypocritical personal attacks.

response 26 of 134:

Feb 9 00:22 UTC 2001

Look - if it gives you and scott your jollies to take potshots, perhaps
you could at least start a new item rather than demolishing this discussion.

response 28 of 134:

Feb 9 03:45 UTC 2001

I don't want to. Aaron's hurt my feelings. *sniff*
(BTW, isn't #24 a gratuitous personal attack? Let's think about this. IF Aaron
is a true Grexer, then #24 is hypocritical (according to its text). But Aaron
is saying that all Grexers make personal attacks, ergo his making a personal
attack and his being a Grexer makes #24 [as a personal attack]
non-hypocritical. Therefore Aaron is not a true Grexer, by his own definition.
Therefore #24 carries the implication that he does not make personal attacks,
which makes #24 hypocritical, which makes him a true Grexer. Of course, we
could resolves this by concluding (a) or (b):
(a) Non-Grexers sometimes make gratuitous, hypocritical attacks or
(b) Aaron's an asshole
shall we vote on which we prefer?)

Oh, anyway, back to the topic. Ken, that's an awfully broad statement.
Personally, I would think that BMG has been given a lemon and would like to
make some lemonade. That is, it sees these potentials:
(1) Continue its legal assault on Napster. While they have the law on their
side, technically, they appear to have public opinion against them, and I do
think they have morality against them. The RIAA has attempted to portray
themselves as Defenders of Art, and I think that the masses have bought that
padlum even less than they've bought Napsters Defenders of Freedom mantle.
A case COULD be made that Napsterites are only interested in the altruistic
growth of Disadvantaged Musicians, but the bandwidth sucked up by Metallica
alone casts a pall on that argument. But with the kind of attention that the
RIAA has been giving to tripe like Britney and B*Boys, no major music label
can claim that they're just Standing Up for the Boys. They're in it for the
cahs, and they're willing to exploit the law as much as they can, even if it
means fucking ethics over.
(2) Be the first to partner with Napster. I think the goal was to make it look
like BMG was the lone sheep, the one who truly WAS interested in the Art, and
a marraige with Napster would show those cute little kids that BMG is willing
towaver in its capitalist tracks enough to embrace the little guy, to give
them an opportunity to grow. See, BMG isn't like those OTHER labels, which
are just interested in money. BMG **CARES**. It saw the PR mess that the RIAA
lawsuit has created, and decided to cut a plea bargain. And it can't lose,
either, or so it thinks: If the other labels come on board, then they were
the Trendsetters. if the other labels go on to win the suit and Napster is
banned for ever and always, problem solved without having become part of the
Man, the Bad Guy themselves. If Napster is barred from distributing all but
BMG's and independent (read: some folkie who sings in Irish pubs, and some
hacker who bangs on a Casio in his basement) music, then hey, BMG has its own
little machine all pre-fabbed. And they're probably right about the possible
outcomes.

response 30 of 134:

Feb 9 06:24 UTC 2001

(I don't agree with all of what he's saying, but I think Paul is really 
smokin' in this topic.  Hysterical laughter at the first part of #28.)

response 32 of 134:

Feb 9 07:05 UTC 2001

Traditional music retailing strikes me as the wrong user interface at this
point.  Since the music is already stored as digital data, and computers are
capable of playing it, it seems pretty logical that when I want a particular
piece of music I should be able find it on line and download it.  That's what
I do with any other digital data I'm looking for.  In contrast to that, having
to go out to a store and buy a CD, or find it online and wait for the CD to
be delivered strikes me as awfully cumbersome.  Still, that tends to be what
I do, both because I have ethical qualms about taking something without paying
for it, and because my computer's sound isn't all that good.

I've played with Napster a little bit, mostly to figure out what a piece of
music was before going out to a store to blindly look for it.  Napster's
interface is pretty nice.  I search for some keywords, find the song in a
list, and click on it to download.  Even with cost not being a consideration,
it's considerably easier than going out to a physical store and buying
something.  However, beyond the interface, Napster in its current form kind
of sucks.  It's got its nice efficient search functionality, but once you
decide to download something you're often pulling it off the "server" through
somebody's 14.4K modem.

I'm interested in seeing what the record companies do with Napster.  If they,
as I've seen implied, keep Napster functioning as is from a technical
standpoint, but restrict the music there to music from participating major
record labels, I expect that to be the end of Napster.  The selection will
be less, it will cost something, and it will still be slow.  I think something
Napsterlike could be made to work well, though.  The server and client
functionalities should be separated, such that the servers, rather than being
end users' PCs, will be well connected servers belonging to the copyright
holders or authorized distributors.  Users would have accounts with the
directory service -- probably direct credit card billing would be the way to
handle it -- from which they could be charged some small amount of money for
each file they downloaded.  The money, post-commission, would be passed on
to the distributor.  Ideally the protocol would be an open standard, and the
setup fees would be sufficiently small, so individual artists and small
distributors could offer their stuff through the service as well.

That's my grand vision for online music distribution.  I don't expect those
actually doing online music distribution to follow my idea for how they should
do it, and I'm not sufficiently motivated, or expecting enough support from
the major record companies, to make it worth doing myself.