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?

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.

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.

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.

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.