Review of Pay Napster 382
An Anonymous Coward writes: "A beta tester for the recently released subscription version of Napster has anonymously posted his impressions of the new service. He finds it remarkably similar to the old one, both good '... browsing through a real person's music collection, sending them messages and recommending them new music' and bad '... broken tracks, cancelled transfers and a complete inability to stream or preview tracks.' The service allows 50 tracks a month, but there was little decent content to fill those slots. Messages to other beta testers found mixed reactions among fellow users. Still, the writer holds out some optimism for Napster's chances."
Up to 50 tracks (Score:4, Insightful)
Sorry, if I'm paying for it, (Score:3, Insightful)
What's the point (Score:3, Insightful)
50 tracks a month? (Score:2, Insightful)
Besides, I've often downloaded a great song and said, "hey, I want more!" And bought the CD.. If I can't find good/new music, buying CD's is something that really wouldn't enter my mind.
Only 50 per month huh.... (Score:1, Insightful)
And I most likely would pay for the service.... playing banner games on hotline, and working with slow networks of buggy / slow / limiting applications like Morphious is getting a bit teadious......
Bravo Napster! (Score:5, Insightful)
What do you do?
Shut it down and die, or change it and try and make a buck?
We were one of the first labels to support Napster in public. And whatever they decide to do in the future, they have unleashed an idea that has changed everything, and for that, we as a label and as artists say "thank you".
Its up to anyone who does not like the new Napster to take the many free tools that are out there and create something new that is exactly what the public wants.
Be prepared however, to be vilified, persecuted draged through the courts or worst of all ignored, but whatever you do, dont complain.
this will not work. (Score:3, Insightful)
UNLESS
Some big phat cie (ie AOL Time-Warner Microsoft etc) includes a big link on a portal and gets ol' granpa to subscribe.
Broadband (Score:4, Insightful)
It has all been said before, and will be said again about introducing a new format. Which is totally right, who is going to want a hard drive full of .nap files ?
But I just had a thought, in Napster's heyday (isn't it scary that last year is already "heyday"), broadband was a lot more prevalent. Now, we have seen boradband companies die, as well as a lot of people losing their jobs and either being off the net (doubtful) or switching to dial up. I couldn't help but wonder how many people are left that will want to sit there on a 56k line and download .nap files.
just a thought...
Napster is not news anymore. (Score:2, Insightful)
Perhaps the next rev of Slashcode will allow users to define their own kill filters for headlines?
A Necessary Evil? (Score:2, Insightful)
Why is it that every time a company comes around and decides to charge money for a product, tens of thousands of ninnies decide that it's suddenly no longer 'worth it'? I'll tell you why. It's because they're poor.
Re:Napster, napster, napster... (Score:2, Insightful)
Coincidence? I think not.
I think it is a coincidence for the most part.
I would suggest (hey, just one opinion) that the real reason record sales have plunged is the "boy-band" pop phenomenon. As can be expected, sales explode initially with boy bands (think mid/late-80's) and then plunge as the vanilla music gets tiring. Its a fad. Eventually something comes around and sales go up (like Nirvana). Music sells in cycles. Right now, we're on the downside of a cycle. It will pick up again regardless of Napster at some point.
Designed to fail ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Lesse:
A Proprietary Format - So, I can't just deposit MP3s on a CD and have hours of listening delight? That sucks. I'm paying to get music and I get a lame-ass proprietary crap format that can't be read by anything but Napster's own player. That alone is enough to keep me from paying.
Content is slim - Apparently, the record companies get to pick what is distrubuted. They'll distribute the same crap that plays on the radio, and probably at the same crappy quality. You're better off routing your radio receiver to your soundcard, and you can do that for free!
Do I really want to pay a monthly fee for limited content in a proprietary format? Of course not. This is just a clever way for the RIAA to get it to fail so they can come back and say, "See, we told you so, It wouldn't work. They just want to 'steal' the music, and not obtain it legitmiately."
I'm dissapointed. I was one of the first to say I would pay to download music in MP3 (not proprietary) format, just so long as I can get what I want. It's potentially a great service that I think some people are willing to pay for, less than a dollar per track, and you get what you like! It's perfect. Or, at least it could have been. Now it's just the bastard child of the RIAA.
Re:Bravo Napster! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Napster, napster, napster... (Score:2, Insightful)
You also need to consider the timing, ie, dot-com boom and bust. Back when people were making money hand over fist, there was a little more room for CDs in the budget. Now with layoffs making the news each day, entertainment dollars take a hit.
Re:Napster, napster, napster... (Score:5, Insightful)
Napster is King of the World!
Dot-com boom
People rolling in money
"New Economy"
The "business cycle" is dead
People buying many CDs
The past six months:
Napster is in third-class cargo
Dot-com bust
People getting laid-off in recession
Same old Economy
The business cycle isn't quite dead
People aren't buying as many CDs.
Correlation does not always mean Causation. I personally think that Napster is indicative, not causative, of music sales.
Who do independent artists sue? (Score:4, Insightful)
Common sentiment... (Score:5, Insightful)
If I'm going to be paying a monthly fee for Napster, I'll be expecting a certain level of performance from the service; even if I'm only paying $4.95/month, that's $60/year that I -- a poor college student and a member of the target demographic -- won't have any more. I'm going to expect Napster to deliver, and I don't think it is going to be able to meet my expectations.
The first thing I'm going to expect is constant uptime. The old Napster delivered this perfectly; I don't think I ever got a "cannot connect" message from Napster. However, even though I could always get on, the selection of files was hardly constant: at times I would go on and have millions of files at my finger tips, from thousands of users; other times I'd find a few hundred users with perhaps half a million files.
This is significant because of my second expectation: redundancy. When I search for a file, I will expect to have at least 20 different copies of the song to choose from -- thus enabling me to download the song even if the first 15 users give me the busy signal. I want to be able to download the same song (down to the bit) from no less than 20 locations; the more, the merrier.
This is part of another expectation I have: quality files. I don't want to download a copy of Nirvana's _Smells Like Teen Spirit_ only to find that I downloaded a 128kbit song that's missing the last 5 seconds -- the last 5 seconds might only be fade-time, but it's the principle of the thing. What if I wanted to download a song that goes straight to the last second with no fade-time? I want only complete songs, at nothing less than 256kbit encoding. People on 56k modems might settle for 128kbit (I always settled for 160kbit) but I have faster-than-god 'net access at school, and I'm planning on using it.
My fourth expectation is speed; I want to be able to download all of my files at no less than 200k/second. I don't care how Napster pulls it off, it's what I'm expecting (my basis for these expectations follows shortly). I expect that kind of speed at all times; 100k/second is acceptable at peak usage, say 6pm - 9pm, but at all other times I damn well better be seeing 200k/second.
My fifth expectation is to be able to download songs the day they are released on CD. I will expect to have nearly immediate access to all new music that hits the market. If there are going to be delays between release dates and availability on Napster, they won't be getting my patronage. If there are going to be certain bands/lables that I can't download on Napster, I want to know about it BEFORE I sign up; I want it spelled out for me in BIG, BOLD, AOL FRIENDLY LETTERING. I want to see a sign that says "these bands will be inaccessable to you: ------ ".
For my sixth and final expectation, I expect to be able to burn these songs onto any CD any number of times at full quality. Period. No exceptions. No DRM bullocks. I expect this to work this way.
I don't think these expectations are unreasonable. Here's why: this is no different from what I can do now.
At any given time, day or night, peak usage or not, all of the above expectations are met by the various file sharing programs I use. I can't always get a complete copy of whatever song I want on the first try, but I can download seven different versions of the same song in just 10 minutes to make sure I got my 256kbit, COMPLETE, error-free copy of said song. I can get these songs the date they are released (sometimes several days/weeks before). I can burn them onto 10000 CDs if I feel like it, at full quality, and no one will think twice. I can almost always find a host that'll give me 200k/second or higher (I get max out between 400 - 700k/second on gnutella, because my school has the fattest pipe I've ever SEEN). If any of these things aren't available to me under my current setup, that's fine; I'm not paying for any of it. But Napster wants my money, so they damn well better deliver. If I can't get something AS GOOD as what I have now, I'm going to keep doing what I'm doing and Napster will be $5/month poorer because of it.
I want to be legal about my downloading (not that I'm downloading anything illegally, of course
(Just don't get me started about LEECHES on the new Napster
~A.
Re:What's the point (Score:4, Insightful)
Let me get this right: (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Napster, napster, napster... (Score:1, Insightful)
Another alternative is that the recording industry has pretty much burned through most if not all of their consumer goodwill. My music entertainment dollars have pretty much been switched from buying CDs to going to shows, largely because I feel that it is morally wrong to put money in the pockets of the record companies that are working to eliminate our rights.
Re:What's the point (Score:4, Insightful)
Why should someone pay to donate their bandwidth (Score:2, Insightful)
I mean if you are stupid enough to pay to give bandwidth and harddrive space you are stupid.
Maybe if Napster were more like an mp3.com or CDnow it would work
Re:Napster, napster, napster... (Score:5, Insightful)
How are people exposed to new music? Up until a few years ago, the answer was that they heard new songs on the Radio. When Napster came along, that changed for a lot of people. Instead of listening to the same handful of corporate-pumped songs interspersed with commercials, many, many people went to their computer to find new music. Now that Napster is essentially gone, the recording industry has, in effect, severed the only remaining advertising link between their product, and an entire generation of college-age customers.
Now that people have less free money, they aren't buying as many CDs, and record sales are back down.
That's one theory, but consider this. In times of recession, people are more likely to spend money on less expensive luxuries. You may not be able to afford that SUV or plasma TV now, but you can probably afford a reasonably priced dinner out, or a couple of tickets to Lord Of The Rings, or a cup of gourmet coffee from Starbucks, or a CD by a new band.
Traditionally, music sales and movie theatres do good business during hard economic times. During the Great Depression, the movie industry made enough money to finance the construction of whole chains of movie palaces the likes of which we'll never see again! Right now, the movie industry is in an enormous boom -- movies right now are making hundreds of millions of dollars at the box office. Why is it that people are perfectly willing to spend $9.50 to see a movie once, but don't want to spend $15.00 for a CD that they can keep? The music industry is in the middle of an enormous market failure, and that market failure strongly correlates to the shutdown of Napster. In a bad economy, the music industry should be making money hand over fist. The fact that sales are collapsing is a red flag that they're doing something horribly, horribly wrong.
Napster's rise and fall happened to coincide with the CD sales spike because the Napster phenomenon was tied to the 'net explosion and subsequent implosion, which were driving the economic train that influenced the CD sales bump.
Theory: Napster created a demand for bandwidth, and the destruction of Napster ruined the market for broadband. What's the point of buying DSL if there's nothing to download? I believe that the shutdown of Napster sent shock waves rippling through the economy that significantly contributed to the current recession. This wasn't something that happened in a vacuum. The shutdown of Napster eliminated a major incentive for consumers to upgrade their internet service, and their computers as well. A lot of things have gone wrong in the tech sector in the last few years, but there's probably nothing that did more to squelch the demand for broadband then the elimination of the only compelling internet service that required significant bandwidth!
Again, I have a lot of respect for people who heard a tune on Napster and went out and bought the album - the recording industry doesn't deserve you guys. But I think that for every principled music listener like that, there were probably five people in their dorm rooms or at home in high school who were just amassing free music because it was cheap and there.
I'll suggest that using Napster to amass music only makes economic sense if you're a broke college student sitting on free bandwidth. Otherwise, it's a complete waste of time and energy, and people eventually figure that out.
Time is money. At any given time, any given individual rarely has both. If you're a young college student, you generally have lots of free time, and very little disposible income. The situation completely changes once you leave school and join the workforce. Once you have a job, suddenly you have disposible income, and very little free time.
What's the "cost" of downloading a "free" album from Napster? Well, you've got to find all of the album tracks, then download them, then re-download all the ones that were corrupted or timed out. Then, assuming that you're really trying to displace a CD purchase, you'll spend time uncompressing the songs, and burning a CD. Finally, you'll probably want to make up a CD label. And, you're running up your modem bill, unless you have broadband. How long did that take you, from beginning to end? Let's say that it took you three hours, from beginning to finished "product." What was the "cost" of this free album? The answer is the cost of the authentic product divided by the amount of time it took you to make the bootleg product.
$15.00 / 3 hours = 3 hours work at $5.00 per hour
In exchange for working for three hours at sub-minimum wage, you now have a product, inferior in every way, to something you could have just purchased in the store for $15.00. That makes no economic sense whatsoever
... unless you're a college student who has free time but no money, in which case you aren't really a potential current customer anyway, because you can't afford the product!
Had you just stopped at the record store and bought the album, you could have come home, put your new album on the stereo, read through the pretty liner notes, and had a nice piece of art to add to your music collection. Hell, if you really wanted the music in MP3 format, it's a hell of a lot cheaper -- and more reliable -- to buy the CD and rip it yourself.
For someone with any amount of disposible income, the only rational use of Napster is as a music sampling/finding tool.
But what about all those college students who spent all that time amassing huge MP3 collections?
They are the next generation of music collectors! If someone spends hours collecting thousands of hours of music, they're learning to love music and learning to want to collect it. They are probably more likely, once they have disposible income and lose their disposible time, to want to continue their "habit" -- only once they enter the workforce it becomes much more economical for them to feed their "habit" with store-bought CDs!
In effect, when the music industry sets out to trash MP3 collectors, they are trashing their own best future customers! If the music industry succeeds in driving college students away from music collecting, then those college students will find something else to spend their college free-time, and later, their workplace free-income on.
Even if Napster raised their sales, it was also uncontrollable by them, and these guys are all about control.
Exactly! The music industry is all about control. The only reason that the recording companies are able to sign musicians to one-sided rip-off contracts is because they have a virtual monopoly over every aspect of the music market. Take that monopoly away, and the recording industry has no value to artists. The effort to shut down, then cripple Napster, serves one purpose -- to re-consolidate control over what music Americans are exposed to.
This battle is all about control.
Re:Show me. (Score:5, Insightful)
Didn't see a single thing I wanted.
Thats my whole point. The only stuff that is being released digitally is:
a) alternative, fringe, old, or otherwise stuff that I don't want.
b) the latest and greatest, with the largest collections, but saddled with so many conditions and restrictions I'd be throwing away money.
Sure - eMusic.com is *something*, but it sure ain't what I want. This afternoon I downloaded 30 tracks off AudioGalaxy. I just searched for them on eMusic. Nope - not a single one.
>>put your money where your mouth is.
Show me somewhere i can spend my money that offers the service and selection i'm expecting. eMusic sure ain't it. I know eMusic isn't the only game in town, but it's very representative.
This has nothing to do with 'hot air'. If i'm looking to pay for a particular song, i want that song. I don't want some other generic or substitute from the same 'genre'. This isn't like going to the supermarket and substituting one brand of milk for another.
50 tracks a month??? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Napster is not news anymore. (Score:1, Insightful)
the articles or post idiotic ramblings about them. Simply ignore
them.
There! Problem solved!
Now on to world hunger...
ac
Re:Napster Died a long time ago... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Will this be cracked? (Score:1, Insightful)
You may not have noticed, but you can play MP3 files when they are incomplete - even when they're only 5% complete (that's how I determined if I liked a song while dl'ing via Napster on my dialup connection -- I'd cancel the song if it sucked).
That's why MP3 streaming (Shoutcast, etc.) works, BTW... You don't *need* that last byte to hear the other 4.99999 million bytes. And by the time you're at the last byte, the song is effectively over anyway!
In any case, how long will it be before the file format is cracked and a NAP-to-MP3 converter is produced? For multiple OS's no less! Probably not very long at all...
The real story (Score:3, Insightful)
People will refuse to pay for this; not because of a refusal to pay for content, but a refusal to pay for such limited, proprietary content. That won't stop the RIAA from pointing to the failed pay Napster business model and claiming it supports their claims that only music "pirates" used Napster.
Then they'll jack up CD prices a little more. All in a day's work.
-Legion