Talk:Napster/Archives/2013

Latest comment: 11 years ago by NeilN in topic Promotion section


Jordan Ritter

I can find a bunch of news stories that mention Fanning as founder, and even John Fanning, but Ritter isn't mentioned. He seems to have been a developer hired to write some of the server code. Founding developer isn't founder, and the other article lists him as a programmer. No wiki article.  M  03:02, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Jordan Ritter hung around for a bit in the beginning and did some server-side stuff but it didn't last. Within a few months of the start, Jordan Mendelson joined Napster. Jordan Mendelson totally redid the backend of Napster and none of the Jordan Ritter stuff survived. Jordan Mendelson was the chief architect and the one who scaled everything so that Napster always stayed up and running during the explosive growth. There is often confusion because of the same first name but none of the Jordan Ritter code was actually used by Napster beyond the first few months

Previous comment was authored by 76.14.60.46, the same IP that edited the Napster wiki page to reflect these comments as fact (diff of "chief architect" addition). From the contribution history, the IP appears to be Jordan Mendelson himself, perpetuating false information for his own benefit. Jordan Mendelson was a bright contributor but never held the title of Chief Architect, nor was he officially in charge of anything. jpr5 (talk) 22:01, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

What are you smoking? Ritter, Ali, and Jordie all worked together on the server for the entire length of the project. In fact as I recall Ritter implemented the mesh code that finally allowed searching across multiple servers. 67.188.208.208 (talk) 06:51, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Promotion section

I attempted to edit the "promotion" section of this article to explain that recorded music sales dropped 50% from the inception of Napster (and its progeny) in 1999 through 2009, but it was reverted out by several Wikibullies, who do not want that fact set forth. I also disputed the use of the term "sharing," which is a misnomer. Sharing is a computer concept whereby a network of computers share access so that computer A can access a file on computer B, but the file remains resident on computer B. Copying is a simple concept whereby the file on computer B is copied to computer B. Napster was designed to facilitate copying, but the proponents of Napster called it "sharing" for propaganda purposes, since the unauthorized copying of a copyrighted work is a civil and criminal offense and morally wrong. "Sharing" sounds like something your elementary school teacher wanted you to do. If you share a sandwich, the other person eats half of your sandwich. If you log onto a so-called "file-sharing" system, the other person copies your song, but you keep your copy, too. The Courts held that Napster was a giant copyright infringement. However, it was very popular and still has many proponents on Widipedia, who still insist on calling it "sharing" and don't want the fact that their "sharing" wiped out the music industry (and a lot of recording arists with it), because that makes them immoral people. Now they add CENSORSHIP to their bad acts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArdenHathaway (talkcontribs) 19:51, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Note ArdenHathaway's POV: [1]. Napster is called a file-sharing service because that's what reliable sources call it: [2], [3], [4], [5] --NeilN talk to me 20:06, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

"File sharing" is a propagandistic misnomer which was applied by the proponents of Napster because what they were doing was creating a criminal conspiracy to infringe copyrights. What their system actually did was "file copying." The fact that others used the misnomer does not mitigate the inaccuracy. I'd call it a "file stealing" system, but that's not "neutral." ArdenHathaway 21:03, 18 November 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArdenHathaway (talkcontribs)

And thus, you miss the point of one of our core policies, WP:Verifiability: "...content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors." If you can find neutral sources (note that I provided links to Britannica and Time among others) that call it a file-copying system then you can make your case. Simply providing your opinion will accomplish little. --NeilN talk to me 22:53, 18 November 2013 (UTC)