Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Harnessing the Power of P2P, Looking Back

Posted by CmdrTaco on Sun Nov 20, 2005 11:29 AM
from the something-to-think-about dept.
The Internet IT
brajesh writes "It has been seven years since Napster, the first widely-used peer-to-peer music sharing service, was released, and it made a major impact on how people, used the Internet. NY Times has an article about Napster and how it quickly grew into an Internet phenomenon - not to mention the music industry's bête noire until it was shut down by the courts four years ago. The article also mentions Shawn Fanning, the creator of Napster and his new venture, along with other efforts like new version of Grokster, Apple's iTunes, trying to cope up with growing concerns of Copyright Violations and corresponding backlash against P2P file-sharing."
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Harnessing the Power of P2P, Looking Back 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • Sure it did... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    and it made a major impact on how people, used the Internet.

    Sure it did. From that day on, people using the new protocol were all guilty before proven guilty. All people hear today are 'cutting sales', 'innovation', 'rootkit' for that matter. This is a new age I guess. And if you're not one of the 'big guys', it's not really fun...

    • You forgot "stealing", "theft", "rampant piracy" and "defending the rights of the artists".

      And "hypocrisy", but that exists on both sides so I think it cancels out.
        • Because most artists nowadays are one-day-wonders, puppets of the industry, and therefor happy with the way things are going?

          The REAL artists, those who take pride in their music (whatever genre it may be) and who care about their fans have a hard enough time as it is.

    • Napster changed the distribution of the product, but not the nature of the product itself. The product being, in this case, an unchangeable audio recording. The true revolution of P2P will happen when people start assuming that what they are downloading is not a finished selling product, but a musical piece that is constantly changing and in development. Present technology doesn't allow the recording to be changed after it has been 'solidified' into a finished product. Future technology may allow this t
  • I wonder how Shawn feels about letting loose the RIAA and the massive flood of lawsuits and etc that exists today...
    • I wonder how Shawn feels about letting loose the RIAA and the massive flood of lawsuits and etc that exists today...

      Like a sellout [business2.com], perhaps?

      From above link:
      The creator of Napster has a plan to help file-sharing networks go legit and make money for the music labels.

    • He's laughing all the way to the bank after stealing the idea from "The Real Napster" aka that guy from The Italian Job (2003)

  • Summaries quality? (Score:5, Funny)

    by dorkygeek (898295) on Sunday November 20 2005, @11:43AM (#14075934) Journal
    Is it just me, or is the grammar of the summaries especially, bad on weekends?

  • Napster never lost his case, justice did. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by k00110 (932544) on Sunday November 20 2005, @11:44AM (#14075935)
    Actualy if Napsters had has many lawyers and money as the Majors "babels", they would be where iTunes is right now. The ways laws work should be changed so people with the most ressources don't get an advantage over those without.
    • ``The ways laws work should be changed so people with the most ressources don't get an advantage over those without.''

      Or rather, the way courts work. The combination of (1) spending more on lawyers increases your chances of winning, (2) the winning party still has to pay their own legal fees, and (3) court cases can be extended and extended again seemingly without bounds makes it very difficult for those with little money to win a case.
      • well there is a simple solution they use in the NFL to help make profesional football more competitive... 'salary caps' if the amount of money that oj simpson could spend on his lawyers was limited by the dollar value that the state of california could spend on it's prosecution... well.. things mighta turned out differently.

        no reason to set caps on civil cases, since they're just about money, but for federal courts and criminal cases there really should be some kinda salary cap on legal fees.

        depending on h
    • ``Actualy if Napsters had has many lawyers and money as the Majors "babels", they would be where iTunes is right now.''

      No, it's in the way they set it up. iTunes worked with the labels to get a deal satisfactory for both parties. Napster ignored the label's wishes until the labels dragged Napster to court. Twist it how you will, but Napster shutting down and iTunes thriving is exactly how it should be.
      • Actually, there Napster and several other internet music companies (myplay, musicbank etc etc) all tried working with the labels and were universally stonewalled. The napster case was actually the catalyst that got the labels talking with the digital music companies, but by that time most of the 'legal' companies were in bad shape financially and folded. had built all the technology and sales models we see in the market years before the Itunes music store appeared and won all sorts of awards for innovatio

  • Captain Kirk? (Score:5, Funny)

    by XanC (644172) on Sunday November 20 2005, @11:44AM (#14075936)
    and it made a major impact on how people, used the Internet.

    Is that you?

    • Captain Kirk ... Is that you?

      What a waste -- I used up all my moderator points about 15 seconds before I saw this, but it's the funniest I've seen all day.

      New idea for Slashdot: ability to "borrow" against future moderation points -- if you see something that really deserves moderation, you can do it, but you have to pay "interest" on what you use -- using one point ahead of time takes up two points (or whatever) when you next get them -- and of course there's a limit on how far in debt you can go a

  • Napster had the most impact on the Net since WWW (Score:4, Interesting)

    by saskboy (600063) on Sunday November 20 2005, @11:46AM (#14075955) Homepage Journal
    I'd say that Napster shaped how people use the Internet. It was the greatest advancement in Internet use since the invention of the WWW for browsing. SETI@Home came out about the same time as Napster, and it paved the way for other distributed computing projects which have had some impact on the Internet's usage, but even the popular screensaver has been dwarfed by P2P sharing programs.

    I think SETI@Home would have been the biggest thing since sliced bread if they found a way to search for alien music online while looking for alien signals in space. And the Voltrons don't even have obscure earth copyright laws for downloaders to worry about, although their tenors do make your head explode if you crank the volume.

    • I think SETI@Home would have been the biggest thing since sliced bread if they found a way to search for alien music online

      That's one for The Onion:

      Furious lawyers representing the Recording Industries Association of Neptune arrived on planet earth today to initiate litigation in response to the latest internet file-sharing phenomenon - Search for Extra-Terrestrial Music @ Home ...

      "12-years old or not", snarled Zgilrolivolgh, "this little pipsqueak is leeching off our deprived artists who can barely

  • Isn't it funny? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by MightyYar (622222) on Sunday November 20 2005, @11:49AM (#14075976)
    Everyone who used Napster thought it was the coolest thing that had happened to music in a long, long time. How messed up is our system when something that universally praised met it's demise?
    • Maybe it's kind of like what happened in Iraq immediately after Saddam was removed from power. Suddenly, people massively started plundering, terrorizing neighborhoods, and killing their opponents. and no doubt some people gained a lot from it. Then, the new powers started cracking down on the unrest. Now, there is some unrest still, and the end is not in sight yet, but the massive lawlessness has ceased.

      The same development for Napster. When Napster came along, people started massively pirating music. The
      • There are some points where this analysis breaks down:
        1. No physical damage was inflicted, no one deprived of any property.
        2. No violence took place.

        Also, I take issue of the term "pirate" as applied to people who are not doing anything for profit. For instance, was I a pirate when I made a mix-tape for the girl I liked in 6th grade? I'd like to think not, but now I'm just arguing semantics - which side-steps the issue.

        I believe that laws should protect the interests of the electorate. The only people I heard

        • Back when I used Napster, I got a napster IM from a guy who had made one of the songs on my machine.

          He was quite pleased, and kept asking me what I thought of different parts, different effects, and the like.
        • ``Also, I take issue of the term "pirate" as applied to people who are not doing anything for profit. For instance, was I a pirate when I made a mix-tape for the girl I liked in 6th grade?''

          It depends on the law. In the Netherlands, for example, you are allowed to make a copy for personal use, and you're also allowed to lend your CDs etc. to friends (who are also allowed to make a copy for personal use). You are even allowed to make a copy on behalf of someone you know; this makes your mix tape perfectly le
          • Copyright is not a moral issue.

            Is whistling a tune you heard okay? Do you have permission to "copy" or "perform" it?

            Copyright is a simple matter of trying to encourage artists to produce - there is no natural right to an emitted sound wave, photon, or idea.

            Presenting someone else's work as your own - that is a moral issue, but that is not what we are talking about here.

      • Maybe it's kind of like what happened in Iraq immediately after Saddam was removed from power. Suddenly, people massively started plundering, terrorizing neighborhoods, and killing their opponents. and no doubt some people gained a lot from it. Then, the new powers started cracking down on the unrest. Now, there is some unrest still, and the end is not in sight yet, but the massive lawlessness has ceased.

        Please explain how constantly killing people with car- and other bombs is not "massively lawless" ?

        • ``Please explain how constantly killing people with car- and other bombs is not "massively lawless" ?''

          I said "massive lawlessness", not "massively lawless". Killing people is lawless, but it's not massively happening; not as massively as the plundering was, anyway.

          ``And while you're at it, please explain what this has to do with Napster''

          Plundering, terrorizing the neighborhood, and killing are illegal, and spreading music you don't have the rights to is illegal. The plundering, the terrorizing the neighbo
    • A lot of people in the past thought slavery was good too.
      • LOL. So, the two main arguments against my parent post so far have been:

        1. Napster was like the war in Iraq.
        2. Napster was like slavery.

        Please, I know you are trying to make a parallel to something concrete and physical, but Napster did not subjugate anyone, deprive anyone of the use of anything, or physically harm anybody.

        • I think the point you're missing is that "popularity amongst its users" is not a very good benchmark for validity.

          The fact that I like doing something illegal doesn't mean that it should be legal.
          • "Popularity amongst its users" was not my argument. "Popularity among the general public" was. I have only met two people that thought Napster was wrong (morally - just about everyone agreed that it was wrong legally). One is a contract lawyer and the other is a lawyer for Time Warner. Even then, the husband of the lawyer for Time Warner was using Napster. Maybe my sample population was slanted? Maybe, but I don't think so.

            The fact that YOU like doing something illegal - as you say - means squat. However, w

            • However, when the majority of people also like doing that something - well, that's what should determine law in a democracy.

              It's not, actually.

              A majority that enjoyed owning slaves, segregating schools, etc. had those things taken away from them by a legally empowered minority. A minority chooses to get tattoos, but that doesn't mean we make tattoos illegal. The laws are determined based on larger realities and principles, not just what the population votes on. The fact that the majority of the people
              • You've gone back to comparing Napster to slavery and murders - at least you left out the holocaust.

                I made it clear in my last post that my argument is that most people think that sharing music is okay. Consider my "Everyone who used Napster" quote to be poorly phrased - my mistake.

                I am well aware of the deficiency of democracy, and will be happy to discuss alternatives that give minorities more voice. This web site [condorcet.org] has a number of voting methods that we could discuss. However, in this case we are not talkin

  • Hmmmm (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Sv-Manowar (772313) on Sunday November 20 2005, @11:55AM (#14076008) Homepage Journal
    It's amazing how napster and the other p2p programs have really revolutionized the internet, before home pc's were common I knew no-one who would have over maybe 50 CDs. Now when I talk to anyone, they have a full iPod and tons of songs. Instead of hounding the net, the music industry should be celebrating how it has helped people find new bands and new genres that they like.

    • Re:Hmmmm (Score:2, Interesting)

      by issachar (170323)
      Absolutely. I just listened to the little music I had before. I almost never bought music and when I did, it was from second hand CD stores. Then P2P happened. I've got more music than I can listen to and my tastes have really expanded. (Of course I also went to college in the meantime, so that might have had an effect too).

      But P2P is a hassle. As easy as Limewire is, it's not as easy as I'd like it to be. (Although it is easier than going to a store and finding what I'm looking for).

      The napster

    • Re:Hmmmm (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Jerry Coffin (824726) on Sunday November 20 2005, @12:45PM (#14076320)

      Instead of hounding the net, the music industry should be celebrating how it has helped people find new bands and new genres that they like.

      This would only make sense if the music industry really wanted to serve their customers -- and based on their actions, that's quite apparently not the case at all.

      First of all, I'm pretty sure that while the recording industry makes lots of noise about how much revenue they're losing due to P2P, they also have good enough financial analysts that when they're being honest with themselves, they realize that the real loss is essentially zero.

      First of all, the ability to actually search and find what you want to a large extent makes the recording companies irrelevant. Until recently, bands fell into two discrete categories: those with recording contracts, and those without. Anybody without a contract remained essentially a nonentity. Many bands were quite willing to sign virtually any possible recording contract, because even if they realized it was horribly unfair, they still ended up far better off than without it.

      Most of this derived from two things: distribution and promotion.

      With P2P, both of those are largely nullified. The P2P network provides absolutely anybody with essentially instant, worldwide distribution. Likewise, searching means people can find what they really want instead of depending on the record company promotions to tell them what they want.

      Now, it's true that the majority of what has been distributed over P2P networks has been material copyrighted by the record labels. Frankly, I doubt that's what they really cared about though -- what they cared about was the fact that if Napster (for example) had been allowed to survive for very long, there would have been a migration away from "their" music, and they would have faced utter irrelevancy.

      For them, this isn't a matter of boosting sales by an extra few percent -- it's a matter of outright survival. They probably also realize that it's really a losing battle. As an industry they're currently providing no value, and despite attacks on their intelligence, they're smart enough to realize that if they provide no value, they'll die.

      What they're doing right now is (I suspect) mostly a delaying tactic, trying to maintain some degree of relevance until they can figure out how to put themselves back onto the mainstream.

      I suspect iTunes (and its ilk) will be a large part of that. Contrary to implication elsewhere, while iTunes is certainly a way for people to download music, it's most assuredly not a p2p network. iTunes is a perfectly average centralized network where you're downloading music from ITMS' servers. It's centralized and controlled in almost exactly the same way as traditional music publishing was. In fact, in the long run it probably creates a situation even MORE favorable to the recording industry.

      With traditional brick and mortar distribution, the big distributors (Best Buy, Sam Goody's, etc.) had quite a bit of power over the recording companies. Most of this power derived from the fact that building thousands of record stores was expensive and difficult, so the supply of national distributors was fairly limited. The Internet and non-P2P record distribution like iTunes changes that: it takes virtually nothing to set up a reasonably usable international recording distribution network. ITMS is way out in front right now, but I'm pretty sure Apple realizes that there are thousands of other people with the capability and resources to put together a reasonably competitive offering in a matter of months.

      This means ITMS has virtually not power when they bargain with the record labels. Previously the record labels probably had something like 80% control over the music stores. I'd guess with Yahoo! Music, ITMS, MP3.com, etc., they see a chance to have more like 95% control, and they like that idea a whole lot.

      ITMS (for one) may seem a lot like Napster in a

        • It is very much the case. RTFA. The fact of the matter is this: Record sales are going down. Illegal P2P downloads are going up.

          That depends on who you listen to -- according to the RIAA (i.e. representing only the largest labels) sales are going down. NARM (representing record stores) disagrees -- they claim that although it's slow, there is actually growth in record sales.

          IOW, much of what's happening is that independent labels are growing at the expense of the major labels. The assertion that ill

    • Music industry doesn't want to "help people find new bands and new genres that they like". The want to impose limited number of "artists" and genres, that's all.

  • The New Napster... (Score:5, Informative)

    by issachar (170323) on Sunday November 20 2005, @11:59AM (#14076026) Homepage
    Having just signed up for the new Napster a couple of days ago, I think they might actually have something worthwhile.

    The subscription model is good. I still don't trust buying something digital that I can't copy. I also tend to have tastes that change all the time. For $10 per month I get "everything". Even if the DRM is crackable, why would I bother doing it? I'm still going to want to get new music and $10 per month isn't going to break the bank.

    Napster downloads fast and it's simple. Limewire and the like are cheaper, but they're slightly more of a hassle and my time is worth something to me.

    It does have a few problems though...

    1. The subscription model breaks down unless they've got virtually everything I'd want to listen to. This means they need to have everything. Everything Independent music, foreign music, all of it. If it's just favoured RIAA stuff only or even worse, RIAA stuff without they're best music it'll fail.
    2. They've got 1 million songs available in the UK and the US, but only 700,000 in Canada? I asked them about it, and they said it was because of different music licensing in different countries. So... Fix it! That's an excuse not a reason.
    3. Having part of library unavailable for streaming/download and available only for purchase as tracks are sold in iTunes. Lame. If I wanted to buy music a la carte, I'd go with iTunes. Apple sells them for less anyway. That goes with point #1. The subscription has to be total or people will continue to use other P2P. And if they're using P2P, they might stop using Napster.
    4. Charging extra for letting you listen to your music on a DRM-enabled mp3 player. This should be basic service. It just looks greedy.
    5. The searching interface needs improvement. Too much clicking required.
    6. The software should not crash. Which it did when I was listening to my first song. It got messed so badly I had to use System Restore to get it back. No problems since then though. It might have had to do with upgrading to Windows Media Player 10. (I see no reason to do that again and confirm my suspicion.
    7. I hope they fix the problems. Overall, I like the service.

    • It's pretty sad when people are used to, and almost accepting of things we shouldn't be. You even listed them all.

      1) too much clicking. this shouldn't have to be done period, only on signup of the service.
      2) crashes. having to use system restore to get back your computer and it's still acceptable (wtf???)
      3) having to use their DRM -bs enabled player and it's still acceptable (again, wtf???)

      This is not a service, based on your own review, that I would ever be willing to get into. Perhaps if they had a plugin
      • Well, to each their own. I like the service. If you don't then I guess it's not for you.

        About the DRM. If you don't like it, that's your beef, but I see no problem in principle. Their DRM lets me download my music to a player and take it with me. I see no problem. iTMS lets you download your music to a player and take it with you. Again, no problem. I just prefer subscription to a la carte.

        I DO see problems with DRM in an iTMS style purchase model. If I buy a song I want to actually be able to

      • (This is definitely not just an excuse -- if it could be solved, iTunes would have done it, which they haven't)

        I'm sure it's a solvable problem, I'm just guessing that the number of foriegn tracks that people would purchase would be so low that Apple/Napster/etc. don't consider it worth the trouble.

  • And history repeats itself (Score:4, Informative)

    by RAMMS+EIN (578166) on Sunday November 20 2005, @12:09PM (#14076068) Homepage Journal
    It's funny how history repeats itself here.

    Before Napster, people downloaded music from websites, and usually paid for it.

    Then Napster came, and it was a revolution. Suddenly, downloading music got big. Unfortunately, the widespread illegal practices on the network were used to force Napster to shut down.

    Many people have tried to set up services similar to Napster in spirit. Virtually all of these get attacked by the **AA sooner or later, usually resulting in them shutting down. That's the short cycle.

    In the meantime, many people have gone back to downloading music from websites. That's the long cycle.

  • P2P (Score:2, Interesting)

    by phunster (701222)
    Most of the replies seem to be focused on music file sharing. This is a result of the RIAA and MPAA demonizing P2P in order to protect themselves without regard to the legal uses of P2P. I believe that P2P democratizes the Internet, it gives a developer the opportunity to distribute something that he/she has created without incurring the costs of bandwidth. It gives a new band without a recording contract a way to distribute their music. It gives a filmmaker without a studio "deal" an affordable way to
    • Exactly. This helps large free software projects (Linux, Mozilla Seamonkey, OOo), too, because they can now offer large downloads at decent speed, without having to pay for enormous servers and bandwidth. To me, that's where the real wins of P2P are. Sure, I played with Gnutella a bit back in the day, but that was more for checking out the new technology than for the music.
  • - File-sharing programs & networks...
    - SKype's VoIP...
    - (etc.)

    There must be some commonality between
    the many P2P protocols out there, yes?

    Isn't it time, now, to handle P2P
    as a unified "layer" in Linux, etc.?

    There must be a way to make all the
    P2P programs run more efficiently,
    in less memory space than they do
    today...

    My 2 cents... hopefuly not -too- far
    Off-Topic to be considered by dev'rs.
  • I was at a market today and there were maybe 20 or more stalls packed with ps2 xbox games, dvd's cd's full of mp3's. Dvd's generally go at £5 or 3 for £10. Quality seems to be quite high sleeve work tends to be reasonable.

    The question I really have is how does it make any sense to be prosecuting kids and blackmailing parents for file sharing for free. When adults are making thousands every weekend selling the content. I would guess people prepared to fork cash over for a pirate copy might be leg
    • What 'repruhsent' is referring to (and what I was about to comment about) is that the article should read: "major impact on how people used the Internet." - The comma that is there right now is not only unnecessary, but actually completely incorrect. Try reading the sentence outloud, pausing at the comma. (Long enough to count to one.) When I read a sentence like that, it makes me retch. Additionally, there is the error at: "Fanning, the creator of Napster", which needs a comma after 'Napster'. It is not
    • Even if that argument were to gain traction, ( I do happen to agree with you on that one ) there is still the issue of 'unauthorized performances', which is also part of copyright law.

      It can bite you even if you played all the instruments yourself, and had nothing to do with 'copying'. Remember they are licensing content for 'private performances', not the medium/encoding formats.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.