Why is Napster singled out?

**WebHead** · December 9th, 2004, 12:51 PM

Based on some stuff I heard on the radio and a conversation I had with Adept this morning,.. I was wondering why Napster is the only P2P client (if you can even call them that anymore) to be singled out. I mean,.. there are tons of others that freely upload/download stuff all day long, but Napster is the only one that got forked,... and they were the pioneers of this sort of thing. Any ideas/thoughts on this?

**3fingersalute** · December 9th, 2004, 12:53 PM

They were one of the first and biggest, so they get made an example out of.

**WebHead** · December 9th, 2004, 01:04 PM

Originally Posted by 3fingersalute

They were one of the first and biggest, so they get made an example out of.

Right right,.. but I'm thinking,.. if they had to be punished, how come the others don't? Making an example out of Napster didn't work if thats the case.

**Khazad** · December 9th, 2004, 01:11 PM

napster used a centralized server, which meant they had the means to monitor and control the content that was being shared on their network. Newer p2p clients use a distributed server model, in which this level of control cannot be fesabally controlled. That is why the new services can't be shut down, they do have legal uses and have no means of stopping people from abusing their software.

**Stalemate** · December 9th, 2004, 01:18 PM

Napster = baaaaaaad.

Money = gooooood.

**WebHead** · December 9th, 2004, 01:20 PM

Originally Posted by Khazad

napster used a centralized server, which meant they had the means to monitor and control the content that was being shared on their network. Newer p2p clients use a distributed server model, in which this level of control cannot be fesabally controlled. That is why the new services can't be shut down, they do have legal uses and have no means of stopping people from abusing their software.

Oh ok,.. so there is a reason then. Cool,.. thanks for the info. I had no idea about that.