Napster Banning?

[chief]

does anyone know how they are able to ban people from napster without them reinstalling the program and reregistering?
i have an idea, but im not sure

[Nurlman]

Insofar as this relates to the Metallica dispute, I would guess that they're just going to ban the user ID's that are involved, just as this board bans certain user ID's. Metallica turned over a list of usernames involved in trading its studio (not live, freely available) recordings.

Nothing will stop those people from re-configuring their preferences to create a new username and return to their old ways. I don't even think you need to re-install the program, although I haven't looked that closely at it.

There are all sorts of creative ways that they could keep these personna non grata (at least in Metallica's eyes) out, like IP blocking or incorporating digital signatures into the login process, but that's just not going to happen. It's not in Napster's interests, and as of yet, I don't see any demands by Metallica (or anyone else) that that occur. The demands to date have merely focused on the user ID's, not the real human beings behind them.

[swisemankcmo]

In an article in salon.com the other day the CEO of Napster said that they had some way to block these users at the IP level. I always thought, since most people use dial-up access, that would only give them the IP of the service provider. Feel free to correct if I have this wrong.

[Ptahlis]

Well, Napster has banned the users now. In a ZDNET article the feedback given by several users was that they merely uninstalled and reinstalled the program. Napster has nothing in place to try and foil such a tactic.

[bob92]

Not to mention that there are now dozens of "OpenNapster" servers that aren't maintained by Napster, but by private individuals. People can connect to them using the existing Napster application and trade whatever they want without any restrictions whatsoever. This whole crusade is nothing but a waste of time and money, as well as a terrible PR move on Metallica's part.

[RM Mentock]

Is there someplace on the web where you can find out if you're on the list? I've never touched Napster directly myself, but I can think of all sorts of reasons why I might appear on such a list.

[Revtim]

RM, it's my understanding that they made the list from people who were running Napster, and were sharing Metallica songs. If you never touched Napster, I don't see how you could be on the list.

[bob92]

Besides, there aren't any real names on the list, just userids and maybe ip addresses. Now it's possible that someone else chose the username "rmmentock" or something similar, but that wouldn't reflect on you in any way. They could have just as easily signed up as "billclinton."

[HorseloverFat]

Well, Napster has banned the users now. In a ZDNET article the feedback given by several users was that they merely uninstalled and reinstalled the program. Napster has nothing in place to try and foil such a tactic.

Not true, if you reinstall Napster you'll still be banned. Now if you can find an older version of 2.0 you'll be able to log back in, though it still isn't working right. The version Napster serves on their webpage will keep banning you even if you make a new username.

Napster is leaving information in your windows registry, someone has posted, on USENET, a way to erase some of it with mixed results.

[RM Mentock]

RM, it's my understanding that they made the list from people who were running Napster, and were sharing Metallica songs. If you never touched Napster, I don't see how you could be on the list.

Not me, but maybe my "surrogates." Or their friends. Anyway, where is the list? Or are the IDs just banned?

[sixseatport]

I'd like to make a suggestion for all napster users who are upset about this whole metallica thing.

From what I've been able to glean about the methods used by the band's tech people to sniff out offenders, they're just grabbing the username of anyone who downloads (or uploads) something which fits a preexisting criteria -- i.e. anything with 'metallica' or 'one' or 'sandman' in the title gets flagged and put on the list.

Of course, this means that they never listen to the mp3s to determine if they actually ARE copyrighted materiel.

If we (all napster users) feel like it, we could collectively thumb our noses at the band by taking every song we share on napster and sticking 'metallica' or something in the title. Typically when you log into the service, it says something like "550,000 files shared." That's on each server. Napster has something like 20 servers, making a total of 11 million files. Now imagine the metallica police's computers starting to smoke and bursting into flame....

[tshirts]

I use Napster a lot, must have downloaded 10GB, but wouldn't care really if some bands opted out, as long as their music was still available in stores.

The key reason I use Napster is for things I absolutely can't get elsewhere. Lots of early works of people I like that aren't on the shelves any more.

Napster is so hands-on and time-consuming to use, even Beta 6, that I'd rather buy music if I can get it at stores.

I always find myself doing the math in my head to value my time: It took me x minutes tied to my machine to get y minutes of music. Times $z saved/minute-of-store-bought-music and it's the lowest paying occupation I could find. Worse than minimum wage.

[GabbaGabbaHey]

T-shirts -
I cant imagine why you would sit in front of your screen and wait for downloads to finish. My guess is that most people would begin their downloads and leave it to do its thing, hence making that download time x amount of music equation of yours come out way differently. It takes me all of about 10 mins to find ten songs I would like, and to begin downloading them (which is complete by the time I wake up in the morning), working out at about $6 per minute of my time (based on the cost of a CD single off the shelf). I don't know what you do for a living, but I don't come within a sniff of that sort of money...

[GabbaGabbaHey]

Oh, and as far a Metallica is concerned... anyone who listens to that crap deserves what they get. Bring back the Ramones!!

[JonF]

I cant imagine why you would sit in front of your screen and wait for downloads to finish. My guess is that most people would begin their downloads and leave it to do its thing, hence making that download time x amount of music equation of yours come out way differently

My personal experience is that it isn't worth it. I have an ADSL line behind WinGate NAT and firewall. I typically attempt downloads only from people listed as having T3,T1, DSL, or cable modem. About one in twenty downloads that I initiate actually start. About one in twenty to forty downloads that start finish with the entire song downloaded.

[vandal]

I typically attempt downloads only from people listed as having T3,T1, DSL, or cable modem

You have to keep in mind that some people on those aforementioned connections also list their speed at 14.4, 28.8, or sometimes unknown, so that people won't download from them.

Hell, I'm on 768K DSL and I'm listed at 14.4.

(and no, my napster username is not vandal)

[GabbaGabbaHey]

Vandal - I dont know about your server... you should look at changing though. I use a free ISP and typically I get about 80% of files I attempt (and I'm only on a 33.6 modem).

[GabbaGabbaHey]

oops - I mean JonF

[Smeghead]

If you really want a Napster-like service that can't get blocked at either end, try gnutella at gnutella.wego.com. Even if Napster hadn't already been blocked at work, I would have deleted it once I found this.
Or so I heard once, anyway....