PlanetCrap 6.0!
Front Page (ATOM) • Submission Bin (2) • ArchivesUsersLoginCreate Account
You are currently not logged in.
Napster's Final Roar
February 21st 2001, 19:39 CET by Buccaneer

Once again, Napster is trying to find a way to soothe the record labels, after <a href="">last week's injunction</a> in which a judge stated that <i>"Napster knowingly encourages users to download material and may derive financial interest in doing that"</i> and that it also caused several copyright infringements.

According to <a href="">this press release</a>, Napster wants to pay a bribe of $1 billion to the record labels for a non-exclusive license to allow the trade of copyrighted music over their network.

Major labels will receive $150 million per year, divided according to files transferred, and $50 million per year will be set aside for independent labels and artists.

Besides, a new membership model was mentioned that includes a "Basic Membership" at the range of $2.95 to $4.95 per month and a "Premium Membership" which could cost between $5.95 and $9.95 per month and would offer unlimited file transfers.

But will they ever find enough users who support this business model? Is Napster trustworthy enough for major labels to accept this deal? Are these fees too high if you take into consideration that it's not allowed to burn those songs on CDs or play them on external MP3 players?
Home » Topic: Napster's Final Roar

|«« - Previous Page - Next Page - »»|
#1 by "Kayin"
2001-02-21 19:40:09
*flogs dead horse*
#2 by "Morn"
2001-02-21 19:40:34
Keep'em coming! :)

- Morn
#3 by "AshRain"
2001-02-21 20:01:40
Nobody is going to pay for Napster. It's a free service by soul. Trying to get money from it is like trying to have devout christians visiting the Hoola Hoola club.

Not to mention the fact that there are already enough FREE alternitives to satisfy the masses mp3 need.

Bye bye Napster.
#4 by "Whisp"
2001-02-21 20:01:44
Why 1 billion dollars?  Why not just divide up the total $200 million/year among all labels based on downloads, rather than splitting it up first, then adjusting for downloads?  I'd be willing to bet however they did it, the small labels and especially indies are going to find it very difficult to get there share of the pie.  I wonder if that entire $50 million really will get paid out each year, and whether the big labels might not try to snatch part of it too.  Check out this quote:

Independent labels and artists will be paid based on the basis of the number of transfers over the system out of a fund of $50 million per year.  

I'd be willing to bet the only ones making much money out of this deal are the big labels.  The little guys aren't going to see much, and the artists (except maybe the big name ones) associated with the labels probably won't see much either - likely much less per download than they get per equivalent fraction of a CD sale.  Once again, this is about the big boys getting their piece of the pie, not any kind of justice or fair worth for the artists' work.

#5 by "szcx codemonkey"
2001-02-21 20:07:06
Napster wants to pay a bribe of $1 billion to the record labels

Nice... a settlement offer, spun into a bribe.  If you're not happy about Napster canning free downloads, just say so.

Are these fees too high if you take into consideration that it's not allowed to burn those songs on CDs or play them on external MP3 players?

Have Napster said that will be the case?  I must have missed that point in the press release.

That said, my initial thoughts are;

1. How will Napster be able to determine what files are transferred unless they control the content?  If they can't be certain of who owns the copyright for a track, how can they distribute the licensing payment?

2. I'd certainly pay $10 a month for Napster... provided they don't include some crazy clause like "the track may not be placed on an audio CD" or force you to use DRM software such as Sony's OpenMG (side note: I have a Sony Vaio notebook with a built-in memory stick slot and a memory stick walkman.  Can I use Sony's software to transfer music onto the memory stick?  Of course not. The memory stick walkman can only receive files via USB and the drivers only work on Windows 98 even though the notebook shipped with Win2k Pro.  Argh.)
#6 by "szcx codemonkey"
2001-02-21 20:09:21
PS. I still love Sony.  I just tell people I walked into a door.
#7 by "Whisp"
2001-02-21 20:15:27
I forgot to finish the thought...

Why 1 billion dollars over 5 years?  Where did they come up that figure?  Does it bear any resembalence to somebodies estimated worth of yearly music downloads, or is it just what Napster believes is the minimum bribe offer needed to start negotiations with the labels?  Will the smaller labels and indies have any input into the decision and division of the funds?  I doubt it highly.  And where the heck are they going to get that money?  I can't believe they'd pull in 150 million a year off of subscriptions.  Let's say they average $6 per user each month.  That comes to $72/year/subcriber.  At that rate they'd need over 2.7 million subscribers each year.  That's huge!  For comparison, AOL has 27 million subscribed households.

#8 by "sentinel"
2001-02-21 20:22:22
I have this feeling Napster actually believes this will work out, but it won't. People paying for Napster will want to leech - not offer their stuff for download to others. The best users to get files from now are the T3-connected people that are online day and night, typically those at universities and with fast cable access. The first group doesn't want to pay for the service, the second can get what they want from FTPs and other free services. So what's left? Not much.

Anyway, I think the RIAA along with all the recordcompanies really do realize that their demise is imminent. They just want to squeeze the consumers as hard as they can to get all the final drops out before they close shop and buy an island to live on for the rest of their lives. I can't blame them.

Or maybe the average consumer will actually be forced back into paying more and more for the same crap every year, losing more and more rights as well - you used to own a book, but in the future, you will own only the rights to read it yourself. It's only a matter of years before even that becomes "the right to read it for a certain period" and eventually "the right to read it once within a certain period." They will get the government to outlaw any software not supporting their "control standard." And guess what? Everybody will accept it.

The only way to stop this is to make people aware of this. As George Orwell wrote in 1984: "If there is hope, it lies in the proles."
#9 by "brennan"
2001-02-21 20:28:01
Well, erm, bribe is a bit biased; isn't any settlement a kind of bribe, then?  

But something else is interesting to me.  Napster is going to divvy up the money to the record labels based on "files transferred"?  Well, wasn't one of their arguments always that they didn't *know* what was being transferred?  Doesn't that undercut this argument?  I suppose they could just argue that since they don't store the files, they're not doing anything wrong, but then the "aiding and abetting" argument gains new teeth.

If Napster has the ability to track file transfers and divide money based on percentages from each record label, then they have the ability to stop illegal/unauthorized file transfers; they just don't want to right now because people would leave in droves.  Given this admission, there is no way the labels will settle; they're just going kill Napster (and anything like it) totally dead.

And if Napster settles with the big labels, aren't they leaving the door open for a coalition of indies to sue them for their piece of the pie?  Do Touch and Go and Sub-Pop get nothing?  Not to mention the artists - shouldn't they be the ones getting a direct cut of the label's Napster money?  After all, like the multinational conglomerates said, it's all about fairly compensating the artists, right?

The more I think about this settlement, the more it seems to me like (a) it's not workable, (b) Napster and the big five labels might make out okay, but the artists and indie labels get jack shit, and (c) the labels won't take it anyways because even though it gives them money it doesn't give them *control*, which is what they're looking for with stuff like SDMI.

#10 by "brennan"
2001-02-21 20:30:01
Oop, didn't read the part about $50 million for indies and artists.  I still think that small indies and lesser-known artists can expect almost exactly zero.  It'll be like that scene in the Weird Al "Behind the Music" on VH1 where Emo Phillips holds up a UHF royalty check for a dollar and some change.

#11 by "Paul"
2001-02-21 21:45:01

But if smaller labels get less downloads, shouldn't they receive less money too?

- Paul
#12 by "None-1a"
2001-02-21 21:45:03
Napster is going to divvy up the money to the record labels based on "files transferred"? Well, wasn't one of their arguments always that they didn't *know* what was being transferred?

That one of the problems with Napster, they have always said they could never find exactly what people where downloading, yet when pushed they where able to block downloads and users when needed. That hirt their case a great deal (one of their arguments has always been that they could not block copywriten music, yet they did killing that whole argument). If the indies start sueing they come up with some arument that they can't possible track downloads of indy music transfered for users systems so some crap.

One other question where is napster getting the money from anyway? Once they go pay the people working on it will expect money, they'll need to buy more servers, etc, yet the VC money isn't comming in for any netbased service. Where are they going to find the money to fund the transition and make the first payments when the majority of current large scale users (those that they'd make the most from) will be leaving?
#13 by "Evi|ivE"
2001-02-21 21:59:03
No one in their right mind is going to pay Napster for the ability to use their computer to serve...  Now, if Napster had their own servers it would be different.  As it is, they would be charging people to serve music for them.
#14 by "brennan"
2001-02-21 22:12:52

Oh, of course; it should be proportional.  But I doubt very much that Dischord is going to see dollar one from any Fugazi being swapped, and if they do, I'm willing to wager it'll be about one dollar.  I mean, I just don't see Napster cutting substantial checks to each of the probably hundreds of labels and thousands of artists that get transferred.  

And the more I think about it, why the FSCK should the big five labels get 75% of the money?!?  I mean, wasn't this always about the "rights of the artists?"  The labels, if they accept the deal (I doubt they will), will take that money and run, when if the rhetoric matched the settlement, the artists would get 75%, and the rest would get split up by the labels, big and small.  Whatever the morality behind Napster, I hope to God no one will ever again think that a suit brought by the big labels has anything to do with fairness toward artists.

Now I'm annoyed, so I'll tell a little story, that I may have told before on this forum: A good friend of mine joined a reasonably well-known heavy alt-industrial-rock band a couple of years ago and toured the world.  Over the course of three albums, this band sold about 1.4 million records for a major label.  They weren't druggies or lavish spenders, and didn't get the world's biggest producers for their records.  Last year, they got dropped by the major when the bottom fell out of non-boy-band music, and they weren't deemed a good bet.  They were overjoyed to be dropped.  Why?  Because they were $2 MILLION in debt to the label, the debt was erased when they were canned, and they could go to one of the bigger indies, who'd hopefully give them a better deal.  How the FSCK does a band end up $2 million in debt when they've sold almost a million and a half records if they weren't tossing money away?  It's been said and linked before, but that's how the labels work.

So now this settlement offer has begun to kind of piss me off on multiple levels, and I thought I'd share that with the kind people here. :P

#15 by "brennan"
2001-02-21 22:16:15
Plus, what Evi|ive said.  If I'm gonna pay a monthly fee, I don't want broken downloads, or problems connecting because of firewalls, or whatever.  And I don't want people sucking my bandwidth, either.

#16 by "asspennies"
2001-02-21 22:38:33
What people seem to be missing here - and indeed, napster's biggest saving grace - is that they have figured out a great way to handle decentralized file distribution.

If people agree to be part of a service for a small fee, and agree to share those files to other people who are part of a service, you have a fully functional, extremely fast file distribution network with nearly infinite scalability.  It's a remarkable thing, if only it weren't transmitting copyrighted files.

Napster wants to keep its network and it's name, because it will be extremely hard to start up a new network of the same type.  But the RIAA wants to keep Napster out of the loop, so they can keep mp3 distribution in the hands of a few pirates, not 50 million people.  

It's a pretty sucky situation.  The RIAA knows that they can't make a system as popular or as powerful as Napster, but they figure if they shut it down, most people will just go to the store to get their music anyway, and the number of "pirates" would be far less.  And to a point, they're right.  But are the courts willing to stop progress in file distribution just to keep the pockets of multi-billion dollar companies heavily lined?

#17 by "Apache"
2001-02-21 23:05:25
One billion dollars? Fuck it - take the money and buy an island. :)
#18 by "Theseus"
2001-02-21 23:13:35
Napster is wrong.  I use it.  I don't justify my piracy.  There are other alternatives.  Now I'm going to have to burn/rip all my Dorm Friends CD's.
#19 by "Evi|ivE"
2001-02-21 23:20:33
I'm with Apache.  I would take that money and run to the nearest tropical island.  :)
#20 by "brennan"
2001-02-21 23:21:13

Almost like Lars Ulrich trading tapes before he had money. :P

#21 by "Desiato"
2001-02-21 23:29:38
Apache was close -- I'd say "Fuck it, move to Sealand and get a few distro servers there in the left pylon..."

Seriously, they thought a billion was going to do it? You could practically set up shop anywhere in the world outside the US, and have a fun time laughing at the meager legal system trying to prosecute outside their jurisdiction (sp?)...I really am amazed they didn't try to go to Sealand...(for those of you who don't know, it is a defunct WWII anti-aircraft platform that was abandoned and later re-settled by people who now call it the sovereign nation of Sealand. It is outside England's control, even if they later decide to move the borders...that much has already been raised in a court of law and shot down.)

Oh well -- such a wasted opportunity to make a point about the hopelessness of current law against the fundamental core of "routing around problems" the net is known for...

#22 by "sentinel"
2001-02-21 23:48:10
Theseus: "Dorm Friends"? Punkrock or something? :)
#23 by "Intaglio"
2001-02-22 00:06:48
Bye, bye, napster.

As AshRain said, MP3 trading is a free activity by nature; maybe casual users will be willing to pay for Napster but I'd much rather use one of the many other free alternatives.
#24 by "Quicken"
2001-02-22 00:23:21
You know. If they moved to Sealand the RIAA might just get themselves a navy and invade :)

As for the business model napster seem to be going for. Well... someone here said it before: There's a big difference between free shit and paying for shit
#25 by "Theseus"
2001-02-22 00:51:55
"""Theseus: "Dorm Friends"? Punkrock or something? :)"""

I'm a boarding school brat.  :)
#26 by "None-1a"
2001-02-22 00:59:48
But are the courts willing to stop progress in file distribution just to keep the pockets of multi-billion dollar companies heavily lined?

They aren't stoping the progress, napster hasn't progressed much in the last year or so. It introduced peer-to-peer file transfers to the masses (oddly with the help of the RIAA's legal battle), but beyond that has not done much to show why it's a good thing. Finding new stuff is still a pain, finding things you did not know about but might like is a pain. Just about all of the things that could make peer-to-peer the future of the net have not been addressed by napster at all.

What they've done is help the progress, as the napster clones hit the download sites they'll be judged based on what new features they add. Some will add Amazon like download list (people that downloaded this song also downloaded these), some will also small new stuff sections (these unsigned bands songs have be uploaded today). Now that napster is dead the clones will need to add things to set them appart from the mass of other clones out there. This is not a bad thing.
#27 by "ToadWarrior"
2001-02-22 01:28:33
I'm not paying to have asses disconnect in the middle of a download I can not resume.

Fuck napster, I'll go elsewhere.

BTW, what's the status on CS support for PC5?
#28 by "Grout"
2001-02-22 01:50:24
Despite all these high hopes, I believe that despite all efforts Napster will eventually die out a few months after the Pay  Per Download system is up.  Interesting sidenote though, my friends Dad works for the company that's going to be making their business model...

Anyone else booting up CuteFTP, Gnutella and SE?
#29 by "szcx"
2001-02-22 02:17:47
Gnutella is unusable now.  What do you think it's going to be like when the 50 million Napster users switch to it?
#30 by "Creation"
2001-02-22 02:44:59
SE was bought by some other company (forgot it's name).

File sharing's going down.

I think my collection of 470 mp3s is large enough anyway.

Another idea would be to do client-server for songs available on CD from major/minor labels; the labels provide money for servers and bandwidth, Napster provides the software to download the songs for a small monthly fee or a per-song fee, whatever.  Only problem with that is that the connection from that server would have to be a pipe thicker than Al Gore's neck.

On top of the client-server idea, a peer-to-peer system could be set up for songs that are not copyrighted or not available anywhere else.  The names of the songs could be checked with a database that lists all commercially available songs and if the name comes up the song cannot be transferred.  Of course, a smart person might just rename the songs and pass the test.

But to tell you the truth, I don't think there is any way file sharing can continue like it had in the past.

[27] "I'm not paying to have asses disconnect in the middle of a download I can not resume."

Amen all the way.  That's my biggest problem with Napster.  I can find the songs I want all right, but finding someone willing to let me download from them is difficult at best.  There's not way Napster will ever be able to support resuming; I can search for a song, have 100 results, and every single one of those results will have a different filesize.  Can't guarantee that what you're resuming will make a complete song.
#31 by "Dark Messiah"
2001-02-22 03:06:24
Even if they wanted to, the labels couldn't take the money; they'd look even worse than they do already. Plus, I'm sure artists would be livid, seeing their labels take even MORE money for their efforts.

-Dark Messiah,
#32 by "None-1a"
2001-02-22 03:52:04
There's not way Napster will ever be able to support resuming; I can search for a song, have 100 results, and every single one of those results will have a different filesize. Can't guarantee that what you're resuming will make a complete song.

Like I said back in #26 Napster has been lacking in the progress department. For example the last time I used the thing (which was quite a while ago) it had no way to narow the search by bit rate or quality. I had no way of knowing if the the download was going to be a song with good quality in the rip or a really crappy look how small I can get my MP3s type of download. Napster has done nothing over the last year or so to move file tranfers forward in any way, beyond getting people to know about tranfers (but that was mostly RIAA's doing).

Hopefully the clones will try to move things forward and add bitrate/file size searchs (which makes resuming possible, look at the download managers that now search and download from multible ftps all have protection for file size), add usefull featuers that allow unsigned bands to use the service to get the music out there (a simple sign up that allow the software to search a special directory for unsigned bands and updates a listing of new stuff every day), a other users also downloaded (amazon would probably have something to say about that one).
#33 by "Jafd"
2001-02-22 04:07:10
Did someone say, \"resuming?\"
#34 by "BarneyQue"
2001-02-22 04:10:17

Steve Jobs and Nvidia just announced the GeForce3 at the big macworld show in Japan.

Seems the mac heads are going to get the card first at the end of march for $600.00 american dollars.

Count me out at that price.

Carmak also apparently demo'd a new game engine.

Dammit, I'm going to buy me a mac one of these days.  I've not had one since the iie was all the rage.
#35 by "BarneyQue"
2001-02-22 04:11:29
OH yeah, for those of you who care, the details can be found at
#36 by "Creation"
2001-02-22 04:58:53
$600?  That's it?  I thought it was $700...

Damn, man... why's nVidia trying to be goody with the Mac market?  Or Carmack, for that matter?  Do they know something I/we don't?

Frankly, though, they can have the GeForce 3.  No way in sam hell I'm going to buy a video card at $600.  Watch this; the NV20 will only give about a 25% framerate increase over the GeForce2 Ultra.  How much does a good GF2U card go for?  $500?

Not worth it.  I'd buy the Voodoo 5 6000 for that price (if it didn't draw as much power as my CPU), but not the NV20.
#37 by "err head"
2001-02-22 05:35:50
gnutella isn't unusable, i've been using gnotella and limewire for my vital porn harvesting needs since i got my cable modem on valentines day, and now i have a good gig of prime wanking material, not to mention 3 full mpegs of 3 different girls gone wild movies.  napster needs a micropayment system. say 25 cents for a completed mp3 download, 5 to napster, 10 to the person hosting the file, and 10 to the artist/label. at the end of the month you get your little napster statement
 40 songs downloaded +10.00
 200 songs supplied     -20.00
 amount credited to account=$10

people have a reason to host files, leechers pay more, people with extra bandwidth can make a little cash, napster makes something from each transaction. wonder why it will never happen.
About the mac demo, macs don't have AGP. If they're going to mac first, they must have the capability of releasing a pci version for the PC then, that'd be phat
#38 by "None-1a"
2001-02-22 05:36:55
I wonder if that's just the price for the mac product. Remember hardware on the apple side tends to be more expencive then the PC versions of the same hardware. Just a quick look at outpost (first place that poped into my head that sells bot PC and Mac stuff).

Radeon 32MB AGP $209.95 (Mac)
Radeon 32MB AGP $159.95 (PC)

$50 difference for what is in essence the same card.
#39 by "charred"
2001-02-22 06:56:47
I would pay 4.99, or 9.99 a month for the current Napster system. 14.99, probably, but I wouldn't go higher than that. If it goes above that, I'll just go back to using FTP sites... I don't download that much music anyway (maybe 10-20 songs a month), and the only reason I use Napster is the convenience. The number of truly GOOD albums that are worth the 20 bones are few and far between; I sure as hell aren't going to pay the $20 just to listen to one or two songs, and then 10 other tracks which are just "skits" to make up for the lack of musical talent. Most of the stuff I get from Napster is just the mainstream "track of the week" kind of thing... most of the stuff I actually listen to isn't available (or extremely hard to find) in North America. But I'd only pay the money if there were a similar amount of people online. I don't want to pay 15$ a month for access to a library with 2 gigs' worth of 96 KBit MP3s.

I make/remix my own music, and I think Napster's great. I would love it if people got to listen to my stuff; if they liked it, I'd probably blush and giggle like a little schoolgirl. Of course... I'm not in it for the money, so I guess my opinion on that doesn't really count.


AFA the Mac systems... To whoever asked if "John Carmack knows something we don't?"... Probably not, as long as you have used a Mac. If your only experience with them is on forums and BBS' flooded with "MAC SUQS," then he does :)

Getting more OT, but have you seen a recent build of OS-X? That shit is fucking Suh-WEEET.
#40 by "Creole Ned"
2001-02-22 07:32:45
On the GeForce3 debuting on the Mac first: it's a technicality. It's not like the PC version will come down the pike six months later. Just a little publicity boost for Apple and Steve Jobs as he continues to deny the two-button mouse universe. :) The price for the GF3 seems outrageously high if the $600 figure is to be believed, but I suppose if the market bears it...

Napster? I've never used it, actually. Call me a freak, but I prefer to listen to my tunes on CD's through a nice pair of headphones. Sure, I've had friends send me the odd mp3 now and then (and bought CD's as a result), but I've never been keen on turning my rig into a l33t music machine. I tend to agree with those that say Napster is doomed. The concept will live on, but Napster itself is toast. The price paid for being the first major success of its type.

And Apache, after reading the comments in the Mac/Doom 3 thread on VE, all I can say is: I want my brain cells back! :P
#41 by "BobJustBob"
2001-02-22 07:41:02
3 full mpegs of 3 different girls gone wild movies

Man, you so need to hook me up with that College Girls one... every Sunday night there's an hour of The Critic and an hour of Duckman, and during every commercial break they show an ad for that one. It's driving me insane....
#42 by "BobJustBob"
2001-02-22 07:45:45
um, on Comedy Central, that was supposed to say
#43 by "ToadWarrior"
2001-02-22 08:16:42
Another problem with Napster is you're not guarenteed to get the full song, unless you know how long it is. Then there's idiots that don't name mp3s right and you end up getting a live version or some crap when you wanted the regular version. 95% of the mp3s on my HD I already own, the other are mainly stuff from off the TV(KITH, simpsons stuff, etc). The music I get from Napster is mainly stuff I have on tape but not CD and I won't pay for a song I already own just because I can't rip a decent version of it because the tape is well used and I certainly won't pay for the privelage of being able to get sound clips that tons of sites offer in the wav format which I can always convert to mp3 if I want. Sure I steal music, I don't deny it but I dunno if I even have 1 CD's worth of music I don't own so I'm not worried about myself hurting them. You can't afford to steal much on a 56k modem. :)
#44 by "Hambone"
2001-02-22 08:56:06
Currently I use WinMX for my occasional MP3 downloading. It uses Opennap servers and is pretty similar to Napster. The best part is that the file type isn't limited to MP3. For the past few days I have been completing my collection of Family Guy episodes. I changed my mind, the best part is that WinMX is free and will stay that way. Because they use Opennap servers, when Napster starts charging, and goes bankrupt shortly thereafter, I will still be able to use it.

Speaking of music, did anybody watch the Grammys? Steely Dan beat out Radiohead, Eminem, and Beck for album of the year. That is disgusting. You British folk have got to agree with me, Radiohead is the best and most talented band out there right now.
I think I'm gonna go delete my 3000 MP3s in protest. On second thought, maybe I wont.
#45 by "Gunp01nt"
2001-02-22 11:55:31
I think Napster's days are numbered. It worked fine when it was still underground and got no media attention. Now, every newspaper, TV station, record boss and attorney has got his/her hands on it, and they wont let go.
Napster is being torn apart between the users, lawyers and labels, and I fear it will prove fatal.

Not to worry, Napster-like services are multiplying like rabbits and you'll still be able to get free music.
PHEW! thank god, cuz NO WAY i'm gonna pay 45 guilders for a Frans Bauer record!!!! :-)
#46 by "Sgt Hulka"
2001-02-23 00:48:03
The only problem is it's one billion dollars in CNET STock options.  Seriously, I think if you're going to charge people for Napster, you can't rely on peer to peer networking, how can you justify charging me to use my computer as a server?  It's insane.  Additionally, now that I've already downloaded all the Billy Gilman and Aaron Carter songs, what point is there to keep Napster?  

"Son, we think we found your dad in OOOOOOklahoma!" - Billy Gilman, Feb 2001
#47 by "Hambone"
2001-02-23 01:24:29

Additionally, now that I've already downloaded all the Billy Gilman and Aaron Carter songs, what point is there to keep Napster?

Hulka, I wholeheartedly respect and appreciate your ability to constantly creep me out with references to Billy Gilman.
#48 by "mcgrew"
2001-02-24 04:39:43
Morn--- I like it. Beats the hell out of a new password!

As to Napster, I had a whole crapload of stuff penned and ready to upload to the fragfest and here morn goes and beats me to it (as well as bringing in this really slick new crap).

Hell, I'll post it anyway.

BUT to just be a little on topic- Napster has great promise but sucks in its current form (busted dl's and all that stuff everybosy else said). They may be illegal, the courts will decide. But at least on this side of the ocean, trading music wth friends is explicitly LEGAL.

And anybody that will open their "pretty fly for a white guy" is friendly indeed.

If you need my addy, I get enough spam from publishing it on my page, just go there. And when you're done go see Hulka. email mcgrewNOSPAM(damnedRobots)

long-assed posts coming...
#49 by "billy no mates"
2001-03-02 13:07:46



#50 by "Metal Mario"
2001-03-08 14:53:28

Home » Topic: Napster's Final Roar

|«« - Previous Page - Next Page - »»|
P O S T   A   C O M M E N T

You need to be logged in to post a comment here. If you don't have an account yet, you can create one here. Registration is free.
Simple formatting: [b]bold[/b], [i]italic[/i], [u]underline[/u]
Web Links: []Cool Site[/url], [url][/url]
Email Links: []Email me[/email], [email][/email]
Simple formatting: Quoted text: [quote]Yadda yadda[/quote]
Front Page (ATOM) • Submission Bin (2) • ArchivesUsersLoginCreate Account
You are currently not logged in.
There are currently 0 people browsing this site. [Details]