Napster Going to Subscriptions

An amazing number of readers submitted links to various sources discussing that napster will now be subscription based. This follows an agreement with BMG. As Hemos said before, conceptually this is fine, but it'll be interesting to see how its implemented, and what they charge.

Comments

BMG

[atrowe]

Isn't BMG the one with the mail-order music club?

Does this mean that if I don't send back my reply card each month, my computer will automatically download songs I don't like?

Re:artists?

[StormyMonday]

Who cares?

The important thing is the *record company* gets paid. They're the ones who own the material.

After all, the artists are just the paid employees of the record companies. They've already been paid.

Think I'm kidding? Look up the infamous IRS "twenty questions" and apply them to conditions that musicians work under.

--

Yes, but..

[iamsure]

Notice in the articles, they make a bigger point that there is *still* file trading.

So, what that would mean is, you pay napster your paltry sum ($5 a month?), and get all the same choices you have now, maybe half as many, PLUS a whole collection of REAAAALLY high quality songs from BMG's collection (one of the largest on the planet).

This is *EXACTLY* what needs to happen.

Now, we will get to prove once and for all if it was the price, or the convenience that everyone loved.

I bet 50% loved the convenience and are willing to pay for it, and the other 50% "Just wants information to be free".

:)

We shall see!

Hello, OpenNap.

[Wakko Warner]

Expect to see these servers overloaded in a matter of hours after Napster starts charging for its "service".

- A.P.

--
* CmdrTaco is an idiot.

Re:Hello, OpenNap.

[aqua]

I suspect we'll see a pattern resembling what's become of IRC -- quite a few networks, run well or run badly, with roughly similar characteristics. Any given piece of music can probably be found on any one of them. This especially applies since opennap includes an IRC-like chat system, which gives a slight nudge of particular appeal beyond merely trading files. Which will probably be healthy, as irritating as chat systems tend to be.

The good part being, here, that the music industry probably can't go after a mercurial system like this -- you can't clean up mercury with a flyswatter, as they've discovered here and there in the past (decss, et al).

Re:Hello, OpenNap.

[iamsure]

I agree and disagree.

I think OpenNap WILL become more popular, but I think you will see ALOT of people willing to pay, so the artists do get some money.

Most people *I* know arent really out to rape the artists, and get a free lunch, they just LOVE being able to download THAT mp3 they are looking for in 3 seconds flat.

BUT, i also can see alot of people "getting their money worth" by getting a HUGE harddrive, and SUCKING down PILES of mp3's for a month or two, and then leaving the service, only to return every 6 months or so. :)

We shall see..

Re:Really the answer

[dougman]

NO. Artists will NOT get "their money" under this system, to be sure.

Collecting a monthly fee from users hardly counts as actually being able to quantify how many people downloaded a Britney Spears track versus how many people downloaded a Linda Perry track. You wanna guess how much of this "membership" will make it to ANY artist? I'd be SHOCKED if the amount was more than five percent. Consider the observation Courtney Love made awhile back when she talked about how the labels want to pay artists the "club spin rate" for mp3 downloads? For those not in the business, that's a politely way of saying, "shit". And, again, we're talking about that five percent being "shared" amoung the artists whose lives were signed away to the big evil majors participating. And for an artist who gets some "share" of this five percent, let's then take out about eighty percent off the top for lawyer/management/reco-scum costs.

Uh-huh. Artists will get paid under this system. Right. Yeah. Whatever.

Napster totally bent over and took it up the ass here.

Hmmm...

[clifyt]

I'm not sure if I like this idea anymore than any other. Napster to me has always been about trying out new music so that I can go out and buy it. I've got alot of friends who are exactly the opposite and believe that the whole point is so they don't have to buy any music what so ever.

What is going to be the cost of this service? Is it a monthly fee or per downloadable. A monthly fee isn't too bad, but per downloadable and I'm just not going to use it. Are these still going to be in standard MP3 format, or are they going to start watermarking the files, or worse putting them in some secure format. Will I be able to use ths service at work as well as home, or is the RIAA going to get all nutty on my ass and say that these songs are licensed for one computer.

Worse yet, how is this going to effect the Person to Person aspects of Napster. I've got friends that share mixes of their songs not available on CDs (heh...sometimes at great risk to their own careers). What about all the other little bands on smaller labels. I understand the artists have the right to choose how they want their sounds distributed and fully support this, but if the P2P aspect of Napster goes away, it will be like the Walmarting of America. Only those approved to distribute through this medium will be allowed to do it now. Will be be subject to only getting the censored versions of songs? Will their be other restrictions that we don't know about?

There are half a dozen other things I'd like to see answered before this goes into effect. As a musician and a consumer, this sounds like a really bad thing. Oh well, Indiana University cut off my access to Napster here at work anyways and had to go the OpenNap route. Maybe I'll just do the same at home as well.

Clif Marsiglio

Deal with the devil

[bughunter]

Yah I'd say -- did you notice that Bertelsmann is a major holder in CDNow... the publisher of a new study oberving how 90 days after downloading Napster, people stop buying CDs.

Of course, this study conflicts with others that show how Napster promotes record sales. Why?

[warning: I feel a rant coming on!]

Hmm... maybe it's because CDNow's service is terrible! My first online shopping experience was with CDNow, and it took then 22 days to ship the 2 CDs I ordered. Twenty-two bloody days! On the 14th day, I used their website to cancel the order, and was sent an email on the 15th day that said it was impossible to cancel the order - it was already in process. But it still took them a week to ship it! I received it on the 24th day.

Now compare this to Amazon. Yeah, I know: "Amazon's one-click patent sux." But they shipped my single-CD order the next day. Unfortunately, UPS misplaced it. I sent an email requesting that Amazon call UPS and initiate a trace on the shipment. Instead Amazon shipped me another item, priority overnight! That's service! (On top of that, I eventually wound up with two of the items, at the cost of only one. Don't worry - Amazon is making up the trivial loss with my good word of mouth advertising.)

So the point is - maybe it takes an average of 90 days for internet users - who frequently happen to be Napster users - to recognize that they should avoid CDNow. (It took me only 30 days.)

This is the type of company that has Bertelsmann as a parent. Be afraid... very afraid.

Re:Really the answer

[truthsearch]

There'll always be another service which is free. Someone will soon come up with another similar, maybe compatible, sharing concept which will in effect be a free version of Napster. I'm not speaking of Gnutella because that's a different concept. Since the dawn of time (somewhere in the 1980's when computers became popular) there have been free services to compete with the ones which charge. I remember the good-old days of loggin onto BBS's before there was a public internet to download stuff on a 1200 baud modem for free. MS charges a bundle for a somewhat stable OS, while there's free competitive software which just about matches up (and will surpass it soon).

OpenNap

[Ex Machina]

I guess this means I'll go use OpenNap.

I'm in if....

[sdo1]

$5/month sounds OK. Even $20/month (maybe higher), if it were open to just about all music available, would be fine. That's still far less than I spend on CDs every month. Why do this rather than just take what's already free? If I download for free instead of buy, I feel that's stealing... no ifs ands or buts about it. Hard-to-find stuff is a different matter.

A couple of caveats before I sign up...

It must be HIGH quality. The best MP3 is barely good enough. I've got a high speed connection, so I wouldn't mind pulling down a couple hundred meg per CD.

No watermarking. That will kill the sound quality and it disturbs music intentionally recorded in surround (messes up the pro-logic steering). Plus I don't like being tracked.

It has to be a portable format with no restrictions. MP3 is fine (except for the sound quality issue) because I can convert to .wav and burn onto a CD. None of this proprietary "gotta use our player" stuff.

I want privacy options. What I download and the type of music I listen to is between me and the company I download from. I don't want to be a part of their marketing statistics, either as an individual or as part of a demographic.

I want cover art and inserts. Downloadable is fine, but make it high quality.

Finally, I'd like to know how my monthly fee gets distributed to artists.

-S

My (conspiracy) Theory

[danderson]

Did anyone notice that BMG will be giving Napster a loan? Here's my theory:

Napster & BMG will develop a fee-based service for high quality MP3s. BMG will mandate a subscription fee that is unreasonable in the minds of most people. Very few people (if any) will join pay-Napster. With so few people paying for it, Napster won't be able to pay their bills or the loan back. Eventually Napster (the company) will go bankrupt and BMG will declare (enthusiastically) that the only reason Napster existed was for "pirates" to get free music. Selling music over the internet just doesn't work. BMG will claim that they tried to work along with Napster, but the business model was flawed from the beginning.

That's my prediction. Maybe I'm just too cynical.

I'll support this IF...

[Cognoscento]

Here's what EXACTLY needs to happen for me to support this:

1) Access can't be to JUST BMG's "active catalogue". The whole reason I (and many many others) use Napster is for those hard-to-find songs, the ones that have been out of print.. the ones I can't get anywhere else except through Napster.

2) They MUST allow for some sort of short term "try-out period" for songs... That would give you more incentive to check out new things (risk free). I mean, how often does it happen that you download a song only to find out that it's not what you thought it was? (I know, I know, you should check DURING the download...) If the "rights management" system gave me an hour or so to decide whether to "keep" the song, it would deal pretty well with that issues, I think.

Those are just my 2 cents worth...

Neat

[Dante333]

Now we can pay to share our hardrive space and bandwidth!! Will we get discounts if we share more?

Clarification

[tbo]

Note that the article says that Napster will develop a membership-based service, not that they will end their free service.

They may do both in parallel, shutting down the free service only if they are legally required to. Or, they may just cripple the free service in some way... In any case, people are just going to jump ship to Scour, MX, Gnutella...

This is actually a stupid move on the part of the music industry, since, without a legal precedent, they'll have to jump through all the hoops again to bring down those other services. If they'd just stuck with their guns and brought down Napster, they'd have much more clout to threaten those other services.

Re:Where's the value?

[Accipiter]

Where's the value that Napster will provide to subscription-paying users, beyond what they will be able to get through other, illicit channels like Gnutella, IRC, and other free media?

Um, how about legitimacy?

This new service might not become the be-all end-all of pay-for-music online service, but it will open the door to better ways of doing it.

The people that use Napster for legitimate reasons (all 10 of them), will NOT mind a $5 subscription charge to get the music they like *LEGALLY*. You don't want to pay $15 for a CD? Fine. Pay your subscription, and download your music from BMG/Napster's extensive collection. You get your music through legal distribution channels, you're getting it in mp3, AND YOU'RE SUPPORTING THE PEOPLE RESPONSIBLE FOR BRINGING YOU YOUR FAVORITE MUSIC.

Or, you could be one of the billions of thieves out there that steals music through "illicit channels", and was responsible for mp3's bad reputation to begin with.

I'm not a current Napster user, nor have I ever touched it. However, if this subscription service works well, I'll gladly participate.

Almost all of the excuse-robots on Napster are justifying their theft by claiming that "CDs are too expensive!" Well folks, this is a solution to that problem. If you still need to complain, and $5 is too much for you to spend...stick with your FM radio.

-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?

Remember - We still have a lawsuit

[Masem]

I know it seems obvious, but the lawsuit with the 4 other companies is still pending, with the court to pass it's decision any day now. Specifically: is it ok to trade copyrighted materials for non-commercial uses?

Think about that.

If the court finds in favor of Napster, this opens up a lot of potental to 'free' IP that has otherwise been sat on. Copying CDs to MP3 and posting on the net? Legal. Copying DVDs to VCD format, and posting freely on the net? Legal. Copying ebook text and posting to the net? Legal. (Of course, assuming you didn't hack any copyright controls).

Think about that from RIAA, MPAA, e-book publishers pov for a moment.

This is a very scary and eye-opening case. I can see two things happening. Either the remaining RIAA groups feel they have a win that they will stick it out and make sure to get a ruling, or they will drop the case and join BMG in the service. In the former case, if they get the win, it would be unlikely that Napster would win in the SC, and RIAA would be able to relax. However, if they lose, and on any appeals, the entire structure for how RIAA, MPAA, and those others make money is gone. And given their actions, they are aging, and may not be able to survive such a blow. [*] In the latter case, with the threat of such a decision gone for the moment until they figure out how to sue Gnutella, that situation of IP opening up will not come to pass and they can rest easier. If I were RIAA, I know which way I would go. In addition, current law offices that specialize in copyright and music industries indicate that Napster's defense is very strong, including the fact that non-commercial sharing is specifically referred to and protected in the DMCA.

[*] Mind you, the decision could specific relate only to musical works. Movies and such may not be covered, but even with a little break like music, the other art forms are only another lawsuit away.

I'm excited about a member-based Napster, I'd gladly pay a small fee to get high quality recordings. But there is something to be said about opening up the IP that is controlled by a few, and I would be willing to have that over the member-based Napster.

Re:Remember - We still have a lawsuit

[SethJohnson]

If the court finds in favor of Napster, this opens up a lot of potental to 'free' IP that has otherwise been sat on.

If napster is undefeated in court, this isn't the precedent that will be set. In fact, it might win due to existing precedents. Due to the complexities of the impact on IP law that you mentioned, it's highly unlikely that the court would rule that RIAA v. Napster now means you can freely copy anything whose copyright is owned by a third party.

IF the court sides with napster, it will be because napster is a service provider that maintains an index of files that individuals have available on their own servers. This is analogous to the indexes that yahoo.com, lycos.com, google.com provide for html documents on web servers. Precedent has been established that relinquishes a service providers responsibility for the content streaming through its pipes because monitoring it would make the service unfeasible to provide. (napster distinguishing pirated Snoop Dog mp3's from high school piano recitals is akin to yahoo checking that some guys web page doesn't contain scanned text from an electronics repair manual.) Any court, when it can, will choose to rule on established precedents rather than forging a new one.

The one attack that can knock down the service provider defense is if the service can be proved to have no non-illicit use. So Napster proves legitimacy for the distribution service by entering into an agreement with BMG. Bingo. Now rather than claiming that one out of a million of the traded mp3's is really a garage band's demo mp3, Napster will be able to point at this agreement.

Of course this is all moot, though, as Napster will quickly go out of business as users shift to competing free services. Those record companies are so crafty!

Seth

It's my.mp3.com

[SmileyBen]

Yet again we seem to be seeing the people who claim to be protecting their work rubber-stamping a company once they see they can make money out of it. Does Shawn Fanning really not see the irony in saying 'I am excited that Bertelsmann appreciates and values the uniqueness of the community Napster users have built.' of a company that is currently suing them.

So yet again we're being told that the only way we're allowed to have MP3s is if we personally encode them on our computers. I thought we were all supposed to be moving to a new computer model where the desktop computer and the Internet are inseparable and complement one another. Evidentally not.

Where are the BMG songs going to be hosted?

[Rob Parkhill]

One question that nags me is "where will the BMG catalog be hosted?"

I would hope that if I am paying a fee for this new service, then I will be guaranteed to find a high quality recording of the songs I am looking for. This means BMG/Napster needs to set up some big honking file servers of their own for me to use.

If, however, BMG is just going to dump the catalog on Napster and let the peer-to-peer network take care of hosting it, where is the value? Can I charge BMG for hosting their songs? If others are paying Napter/BMG to download a song, and that download actually uses my resources, how am I compensated?

I'm wating for a lot more detail on this before passing judgement.