This article is garbage. It's a typical case of a complete outsider trying to analyze a scene he doesn't understand or know anything about based on "research", and trying to write for an audience that also doesn't understand the tech or scene or know anything about it.
There's not some "guy" responsible for online piracy, and there wasn't a "dawn". If Napster hadn't existed something else would have. Piracy existed outside of Napster. Napster did not give birth to piracy. Piracy has been huge since removable storage was invented, whether it was data cassettes or floppy disks. Piracy was in demand and Napster was the answer, not the inspiration.
Considering the source, The New Yorker, none of this comes as a surprise.
I think the article addressed those points rather well. It highlighted the fact that Glover wasn't the only one doing these things, but his unique position made him a supplier for one of the more exclusive pirating clubs.
The author did a rather good job tying a few story lines together coherently to portray a few of the human interest stories at the heart of the piracy movement. Is the headline and top subject a little grandiose? Sure, but the heart of the article didn't claim that Glover was the only supplier of the pirated records, only that he was the supplier for one of the clubs that typically leaked the records first.
No. This wasn't an article about one person making piracy possible. It told a story of few individuals who, on their behalf, brought the music available to the scene. And how the music got from scene's inner circles to the public.
Considering the number of releases the group released and the much of the blockbuster albums were supplied by the main protagonist, it is hard to argue that his and their actions weren't significant.
Napster is mentioned only as a first easy to use tool for giving the mainstream an access to the goods pirates were releasing.
hey chill, i dont think its garbage. I detected no technical errors in this article. Napster did have an effect, but this article isnt about that, its about the RNS crew, who released so much stolen music in the 00s.
Its from the book "How Music Got Free", and probably has more details you are after.
That Napster is depicted as a footnote is pretty inaccurate, considering the title. Paint his story as the story of a kingpin, but this is not "the dawn of" anything beyond his personal tale.
>This article is garbage. It's a typical case of a complete outsider trying to analyze a scene he doesn't understand or know anything about based on "research", and trying to write for an audience that also doesn't understand the tech or scene or know anything about it.
Rather than "build our own" we should take back what used to belongs to us in the first place.
They say there's a shortage of qualified I.T. people. If you work for telecoms who support a non-neutral internet, then quit. Go on strike. Work only for companies who support Net Neutrality.
> If you work for telecoms who support a non-neutral internet, then quit. Go on strike. Work only for companies who support Net Neutrality.
...you'll probably starve to death, though. Even with the immense shortage of technicians, there's also an immense shortage of ISPs that give a damn about Net Neutrality and are willing and/or able to give people jobs. We've foolishly allowed all of the ISPs to merge to the point that most areas are served by one or two ISPs total. And if you're lucky enough to be in a market with two ISPs, one of them is usually not classifiable as "broadband".
Your next best bet would to organize and implement a slowdown rather than quitting. At least then you're not going to starve waiting for something that will never happen... but then again given the state of customer service at most ISPs, it's also not likely to have any kind of noticeable impact - ISPs are already stupendously slow at completing tasks.
They wouldn't do it at a lower cost. They'd charge you $50 for E-mail, $100 for streaming video, or $120 for the whole bundle. It would match their existing model for bundled services.
Sure today people are mostly focused on corporate run social media like Twitter or Facebook but nobody really likes them. Everyone is constantly bitching about their practices. And you can't really make money on Social Media, which means corporate run social media is going to die some day, when they all realize there's no cash in that expensive cluster of cows.
RSS is free, and everyone can use it, no matter what blogging software you use. Operating your own blog gives you more control over content and presentation, as well as smaller details such as how your commenting system works. It's the superior choice.
It's free. That's important. Nobody controls RSS. Anyone can write an RSS reader. Anyone can write a blog app that publishes RSS. This ensures it will be around to survive the rise and fall of social software trends. When the smoke clears and people emerge from the rubble of the corporate landscape, RSS will be there, welcoming them home.
footnote: I saw this article in my "Hacker News" RSS feed.
There's not some "guy" responsible for online piracy, and there wasn't a "dawn". If Napster hadn't existed something else would have. Piracy existed outside of Napster. Napster did not give birth to piracy. Piracy has been huge since removable storage was invented, whether it was data cassettes or floppy disks. Piracy was in demand and Napster was the answer, not the inspiration.
Considering the source, The New Yorker, none of this comes as a surprise.