← all stories

After the Web · Era 4 · Dot-coms and the crash

1999–2002bankruptcy · 2002

Napster

A program for sharing MP3s free, written by a freshman at Northeastern University: with no advertising and no revenue it gathered millions of users, but the labels' lawsuits and court rulings stopped the file sharing in July 2001; the company went bankrupt in 2002, and its assets went to Roxio.

Founders Shawn Fanning · John Fanning · Sean Parker
Domains napster.com
p2pfile-sharingmusicplatform-riskregulatory-riskviral-growthstudent-growthgrey-zone

In brief

Napster was a program that in a year and a half turned free music from a pastime of geeks into a habit of millions of people. It was written by a college freshman, and what stopped it were the labels' lawsuits and the court rulings of 2000–2001. The company made no money: the program was free, there was no advertising, growth ran on other people's music without a license, and it tried to come to terms with the industry only after the lawsuit. Alongside it in this history stands MP3.com: the same music on the network, but a public company with revenue, which lost the labels' lawsuit over its My.MP3 service, closed its disputes with settlements and licenses, and was sold. The pair shows how growth without a business model differs from growth with one.

How it started (the founders)

Shawn Fanning studied at Northeastern University in Boston. The idea came from someone else's irritation: his roommate loved MP3s but struggled to find music through search engines such as Lycos. Fanning glued together three existing things: messaging from IRC, file sharing from Windows, and search. He learned Windows programming from a book he bought; before that he knew only Unix.

Online he spent his time on the hacker IRC channel w00w00 under the handle "Napster," a high school nickname for his unkempt hair. It was there that he met Jordan Ritter, who later ran the server side, and Sean Parker, who handled the business and the investors. On Parker's past, the source material has only retellings without a primary source estimate.

Fanning wrote the code for about three months in the office of his uncle, John Fanning, in a former restaurant in Hull, Massachusetts. He did not leave the university according to a plan: after a conversation with Professor Rasala he went away for the weekend to work and never came back. According to consistent retellings, in May 1999 the uncle incorporated Napster Inc. and received 70% of the company, while Shawn got 30% estimate. Ritter remembers it differently: by his account, Shawn told him about the incorporation toward the end of that summer. By October 2000, according to Time, Shawn's stake was 9% and was worth practically nothing while the company remained private.

The release date is not confirmed by a document: June 1, 1999 is the date most often given, but it is a commonplace of the retellings estimate. The Wayback Machine first caught napster.com on October 8, 1999, already with version 2.0. The first outside investor is named as Yosi Amram ($250,000), who supposedly insisted on the move to California and on hiring a professional CEO, Eileen Richardson estimate.

Year-by-year timeline

Lesser-known but significant facts

  1. Napster sold itself as a community. On the 1999 site the feature list carries chat by music genre as a separate entry, and the company itself writes that it is building a "virtual community."
  2. There were two Senate hearings, and at the second one Fanning himself testified. The well-known one took place on July 11, 2000 in Washington, where Metallica drummer Lars Ulrich called the new paradigm of the internet gurus old-fashioned trafficking in stolen goods. Less often remembered is the field hearing of October 9 in Provo, where Fanning said that he was a big music fan himself and that Napster's benefit to artists mattered to him.
  3. Metallica went to court over the leak of a single track. By Ulrich's own account, an unfinished mix of "I Disappear" was played on the radio, and he was told that the trail led to Napster estimate.
  4. Universities were slowing Napster down before the court injunctions did. Yale blocked the service from April 2000; at Indiana University, according to a 2012 retrospective, Napster took up 61% of bandwidth before it was blocked. According to a Gartner study, 34% of the US universities surveyed had blocked the service by August 2000, with up to 75% of bandwidth at individual schools estimate.

Legend vs. the record

Legend 1. The labels killed Napster. The court restricted Napster but did not destroy it at once. In February 2001 the Ninth Circuit found the injunction overbroad and shifted the burden of identifying specific files onto the rights holders. Napster offered a $1 billion settlement and took its filtering as far as 99% accuracy, and in 2002 the sale to Bertelsmann fell through, blocked by the bankruptcy court over the CEO's conflict of interest. Fanning himself later said that the company never had a chance. Verdict: an oversimplification. The lawsuits and injunctions stopped the file sharing; what finished off the company was the absence of revenue and the failed sale.

Legend 2. Napster was the first file-sharing service. The source material has no document establishing that it came first. Time describes Napster as a combination of existing technologies: IRC, Windows file sharing, and search engines. Its growth came not from an invented protocol but from the packaging: one client, search, and a community. Verdict: not supported. Napster did not invent file sharing; it made it mass-market.

Legend 3. Napster and MP3.com were the same thing. Napster held an index, and the files went between users. MP3.com's model was different: the company copied discs onto its own servers (per the MP3.com dossier). Verdict: false. What they shared was the plaintiff labels and music in MP3, not the technical model.

The first growth lever

Napster's server held only an index of file names, while the MP3s themselves went directly between users, so the company paid nothing to store other people's music. The niche was student dorms with fast university connections. There was no advertising or promotion: asked what explained the growth, Fanning answered that people love music.

Of the growth figures, the most reliable come from an outside measurement firm: Media Metrix counted from 1.1 million home users in February 2000 to 6.7 million in August. The other numbers are not recounts of the same thing: almost 20 million (Barry, July 2000), 32 million registered (Fanning, October 2000), around 50 million (a student paper, February 2001). These are self-reported claims and retellings of different metrics, not a single series estimate. The peak simultaneous audience per Webnoize, 1.57 million in February 2001, is known only through a retelling estimate.

The claim of being the fastest-growing belongs to the company itself and to Media Metrix in a press release, which said that the service remained the fastest-growing home application in history. This is attribution, not an independently proven fact.

The lever ran out because of risk, not demand: universities began blocking the service, and then came the lawsuits and injunctions.

The paired story

The pair is MP3.com: two attempts at music on the network, and both ended in court.

Parallels today (projects from the catalog)

What a builder can take from this in 2026

  1. Growth on someone else's content without a license buys a reprieve, not a company. Napster had millions of users and zero revenue; MP3.com had revenue and licenses.
  2. Come to terms with the rights holder before the lawsuit. The Bertelsmann alliance and the $1 billion offer came almost 11 and 14.5 months after the suit.
  3. The capital structure matters no less than the code. In 1999, per the retellings, the uncle held 70%; by October 2000 the author of the code had 9% left, and the company was run by hired CEOs from venture funds estimate.
  4. Know exactly what you are measuring. Napster lived on self-reported claims and figures from different measurement firms; the first series from an outside measurement firm turned out to be the only comparable one.
  5. Platform risk kills faster than the market. Universities were blocking the service even before the first injunction.

Discrepancies and what we could not verify

Sources (primary first)

Secondary:

Internet History Keeper

Every historical dossier here is free and open, and it will stay that way. If you want the series to keep going (new dossiers, checks against primary sources, the English edition), support it with a subscription for $9.90 a month. It is support, not access, and you can cancel at any time.

Become a keeper — $9.90 a month →

The same thing, about today

The same breakdowns, but of projects launching right now: what the product is, where the first users came from, how they charge. The card is free, the full dossier is $5 (the dossier itself is written in Russian).

Browse the dossier catalog →