Federal Court Nixes Napster's Free Service

dlupyan writes: "A federal appeals court said Monday that Napster Inc. may not resume its free online file-swapping service."

I come not to bury Napster but to praise it

[Neillparatzo]

Well, count your blessings, we still have WinMX and Kazaa and Morpheus and people on IRC we know and people on IRC we don't know but run fservs anyway and am I leaving any out? Maybe I'm only speaking for myself when I say that we all have so many MP3s that trading them doesn't even seem like a necessity anymore. Oh, while I have your attention, hire me!

If you're going to troll for a job...

[fm6]

...at least provide a link to your resume!

Re:If you're going to troll for a job...

[Neillparatzo]

Not if it's a joke, heh. Who'd troll here for a job, anyway?

Re:I come not to bury Napster but to praise it

[decesses]

Napster brought simplicity to the finding of mp3s. Although Kazaa et all continue this path it was napster that originated it.
Would kazaa etc be around if it wasn't for napster? Probably but they wouldn't have the millions of users they have now.

If napster/kazaa and every other p2p got closed down (almost impossible) it would be back to the old days fighting off popups to find what you like on the www or ftp.

What the RIAA want is simply to make it more difficult for the less technical and those that care less to get what they want.

Napster Resume?

[Mr Jekler]

Who would ever think Napster was going to resume anyway? Here one second, gone the next, and nothing but an antiquity 10 seconds later. That is the way of the internet. If something isn't updated, it's outdated. There was a time when Napster was, well, Napster. And now even if it returned, everyone has moved on to other resources for file sharing. 99% of the MP3 sharing public already has virtually every MP3 they could want, entire albums are obtained before they're released in stores. The entire internet is a vast ocean of data, an ocean the size of Jupiter, and in this place, there's no sense in trying to raise the Titanic, by the time you get it floating again, there's already a bigger, faster, more luxurious cruise ship, leaving that sunken boat to be no more than a rusty piece of scrap metal floating for the sake of floating. We don't need Napster to return any longer, we don't want it either. The millionaire with the cap should throw in the towel and quit wasting his money with legal battles. No matter what happens, the music industry can't succeed in this war. It's like having 3 fully armored knights trying to take down 100,000 peasants throwing stones. It doesn't matter that the big music companies have money and lawyers, they're outnumbered, in the time they can take down one of the small guys, 100 more crop up in their place. Napster is dead, necromancy is forbidden, and necrophilia is disgusting. So quit fondling that corpse.

"free" but not non-profit

[benjamindees]

This is misleading. Everyone thinks that since the service was "free", it was non-profit. Napster profitted from advertising on its website, the only place one could download the Napster client. Thus, it profitted (although indirectly) from enabling people to commit copyright infringement. Although I would adamantly defend an individual's RIGHT to do this, corporations do not have rights. They are subject to laws and punishments such as this, paltry though it is (cease and desist).

Re:"free" but not non-profit

[GigsVT]

So if I write say, an FTP client with build in ads, and people use it to pirate music, then I am profiting from copyright violations?

We've gotten so caught up in this whole thing, that we have forgotten the original arguments. Napster is no different from FTP or HTTP or any other method of copying files. They just happened to provide a nice indexing and search service, and restrict the file extensions to .mp3.

Re:"free" but not non-profit

[Moonwick]

Excuse me, but what exactly is the difference between an individual and a corporation? Isn't one comprised pretty much entirely of the other?

Methinks you don't like the 'evil' stigma of profit that the term 'corporation' carries. But that could just be me.

And let's not forget, individuals are subject to laws and punishments, even for acts committed on behalf of a corporation.

individual vs. corporation

[benjamindees]

what exactly is the difference between an individual and a corporation?

Legally, there is a HUGE difference. Individuals have Natural Rights and exist independent of government. They retain these rights even from government infringement. Corporations, however, are solely legal entities created to protect individuals from personal responsibility for collective actions. They exist at the pleasure of government, and are COMPLETELY subject to ANY government regulation. The people who form the corporation, are, however, not. This is a tricky difference.

'evil' stigma of profit"

"Evil" or not, profit entails commerce, and being "engaged in interstate commerce" puts one squarely in the jurisdiction of the United States. Giving away MP3s for free, however, is not commerce, regardless of what any court says about "value depreciation".

individuals are subject to laws and punishments

This is wrong! Individuals who are not "engaged in interstate commerce" are not subject to ANY US laws, unless they reside within the US (DC, Puerto Rico, army bases, etc). This is the most misunderstood concept of Constitutional Law. Besides, individuals have Rights which they can assert in the face of unreasonable government regulation while corporations do not.

So??

[chennes]

From the article...
The decision, though, has little practical effect. That is because the same appeals court in July blocked the lower court's ruling from being enforced, but Napster never resumed its free service. Instead, it has focused on creating a paid online music service.

So, in the end, we're still crying about a case that was dead long ago. When the RIAA decided to go after Napster, that was the end of it. Everyone here knows that this is a shitty deal, but every little Napster story still gets coverage. The case is closed.

Napster is a protocol

[JabberWokky]

There are plenty of opennap servers and clients far more powerful [slashdot.org] than "Napster Inc" ever released. Napster Inc. is dead. Long live napster.

--
Evan

Re:Napster is a protocol

[JabberWokky]

Yeah, yeah, yeah. First time I've done that... ever, I believe. If you can't figure out the URL [sf.net], I have no pity for you. :)

--
Evan

Napster is a tool

[bpb213]

(sometimes its best to let a dead giant lay, but im going to bring it up anyway) ;)
Im of the opinion that Napster, Morpheous, Kazaa, Gnutella, they are all tools. Software cannot be blamed for its users actions. Admittingly, napster was a fool for keeping a central database, but in the end i dont think napster was responsible for violating the RIAA's pockets. The users where the ones that stole from the RIAA, not napster. Hell, i could use CVS to trade MP3s, you going to try to stop me from running a CVS server too? How about FTP? Window$ Networking? you going to stop all of those because they stop you from crushing the consumer? I dont think so.
The RIAA should step off its money bag and start producing incentives for people to buy the content. DVD music for example - make it cheaper (oh, i know perfectly well it cost you less then a $1 to produce, there is no justification for charging $25 except to line your bulging pockets) and put some goodies on it.
I envision a $15 audio DVD, where $8 goes to the record label for production and marketing and whatnot, but the other seven ACTUALLY MAKES IT TO THE ARTIST. (yeah right they say, like well ever actually pay the artists).
I can actually see people buying a $15 dvd audio disc, as that would kick the crap out of the lowly 128k/s song off the internet.

BBC also has an article about it

[Tasty Beef Jerky]

Somewhat more informative, and without the nasty full-page flash advert before opening it. Link [bbc.co.uk]