Things always seem to come out even-stevens for Napster, the peer-to-peer, song-swapping service.
Where is Napster headed?
With each new judgment against it, a new deal is inked somewhere else.
On Wednesday, Judge Marilyn Hall Patel barred the song-swapping service from continuing its service until it can prove it is not violating music industry copyrights. Just as the end seemed imminent, Metallica and Dr. Dre settled their legal disputes with Napster, ending all legal actions between them. While Napster is not out of the woods just yet, there might be a light at the end of the tunnel.
The problem with the light is that it may end up costing users. For only a few dollars a month, a new and improved Napster, backed by BMG Entertainment, will rear its head this summer. But is money really at the heart of the issue for its millions of users?
Napster’s lure was its simplicity and selection. Coupled with the fact that it was free, the service was unbeatable. Sure, sometimes the last 15 seconds of a song were cut off, or you ended up with a live version of something that wasn’t listed as such. It didn’t matter all that much because you could just try again. And there wasn’t anything you couldn’t find. Selection was key.
How will selection be affected on the new Web site? In their agreement with Napster, Metallica, for example, has agreed to make “some of their material available from time to time.”
Are Metallica fans supposed to be happy about this? This coming form the band whom for so long credited underground bootleg tape-traders for their success.
It’s no longer about increasing listenership, or even about “protection for the artist.” Record companies, for the most part, own the artist’s work not the artist. It’s about the bottom line and who gets paid at the end of the day.
The arguments now seem to be focused on who will get the bigger piece of the pie. Record companies took notice of Napster’s estimated 50 million users and clearly felt left out of possible profits and control of distribution.
In the end, it is the selection that will suffer.
How it all began
The hoopla started in 1999 when college dropout Shawn Fanning created a program that would allow users to share and trade files, specifically MP3s, through a centralized server.
The Recording Industry Association of America quickly filed suit against Napster, charging them with tributary copyright infringement. This meant that Napster was not being accused of violating copyright itself, but of enabling others to do so.
Napster argued that it simply transfers files from user to user, and because the actual files are never in its possession, is not doing anything illegal. Napster users were therefore the ones guilty of copyright infringement, and Napster could not be held responsible.
Napster soon found itself embroiled in a lengthy and complex legal battle against media giants like Sony, Universal, EMI and BMG and artists including Metallica and Dr. Dre.
The settlements
Napster was fighting what looked to be a losing battle. In a bid to get the RIAA to drop its lawsuit, Napster offered to cough up $150 million a year in royalties to record companies. All rebuffed the offer except for BMG Entertainment.
The German media conglomerate Bertelsmann allied itself with Napster, loaning the company money and technical expertise. Together they have promised to develop a secure, fee-based system that will compensate artists and their work by this summer. Subscriptions will cost users anywhere from $2.95 to $9.95 a month.
Napster also cinched a deal with EMI and AOL Time Warner. The deal would allow Napster to use the label’s content once it provides a legitimate service that pays royalties.
More deals followed. In June, Napster signed a worldwide licensing agreement with the United Kingdom’s Association of Independent Music and the Independent Music Companies Association to provide music for its new subscription service. One month later, Metallica and Dr. Dre settled their legal disputes with Napster and agreed to make their material available once an acceptable model is in place.
Where will users go?
Song-swapping technology is obviously here to stay. The Internet will always remain a cheap and viable way of getting music to its listeners.
After Patel’s ruling on Thursday, Napster is, for now, out of service.
Where will Napster’s estimated 50 million users go to get their music? One thing is for sure; they are not going to go away easily.
But while Napster is hard at work trying to build a legitimate model, other file-sharing programs, such as Gnutella, have become available. And unlike Napster, Gnutella does not use a centralized filing system. The problem with Gnutella is that it isn’t as easy to use and selection is extremely limited, especially if you are on a Mac.
Where are Napster users now, and will they go back to the new and improved Napster? Only selection will tell. Most users probably won’t mind paying a small fee if they know they will find what they want, be it obscure or mainstream. Whether it will deliver remains to be seen.
One thing is certain: Napster has opened a window of opportunity on the Internet and has inadvertently paved the way others.
