Slashdot Mirror
Napster Gags University Over Fees
A. S. Bradbury writes "The Register reports that Napster is trying to prevent Ohio University from discussing details of its contract (such as the price). In order to gauge interest for the service, Ohio University posted a survey asking if students would be willing to pay $3 a month in order to opt-in to the service. Sean O'Malley, spokesman Communication Network Services at OU says "Napster called us today and said we should not publicize the details or discuss our contract." Penn State and the University of Rochester both currently have a contract with Napster, but are paying for the service with money that could be used elsewhere, rather than allowing students to opt in."
Aren't the contracts that public universities enter supposed to be public information anyway? They are, after all, funded in part by tax dollars.
Every citizen should have the right to know exactly what their hard earned money is being spent on.
Right!
Limitations
# To burn to CD or MP3 player, you must purchase tracks separately
* $0.99 per track or $9.95 per album (You only pay this if you want to burn to CD or MP3 player.)
* Purchased tracks have no restrictions - unlimited copying, no expiration # Cannot download new tracks during summer or winter breaks * Tracks already downloaded still playable during breaks
What a joke!
Ohio University doesn't yet have a contract with Napster; they're thinking about it. From the survey:
The purpose of their survey is to help them decide whether to enter into a contract. Hence Napster has no legal ability to enforce confidentiality. They just don't like the fact that the university's survey gives an idea of what the costs would be. It sounds like a scam to me. Do you think that the cost of water, electricity, or food services is a deep, dark secret?If you people hate the RIAA that much, why not do something about it, such as boycott them, and make a point of buying only non-RIAA music?
Seriously, it really is incredible how many people there are here who blindly endorse P2P sharing, regardless of whether what they are sharing is legal or not, and then suddenly complain when the RIAA starts suing people. It is especially incredible when you consider that there was once a time when people here were saying, "Let the RIAA go ONLY after those folks who are pirating, rather than try to shut down a P2P network that has other uses besides piracy." Well, the RIAA is now doing EXACTLY that, and yet people are now continuing to complain.
For crying out loud: by now, nobody in their right mind can say that the RIAA has not given fair warning before suing people. I say, put up, or shut up. If you don't like the RIAA's policy, don't buy their stuff. It's that simple.
I realize this may be slightly off-topic, but the fact of the matter is this: I believe the RIAA has a legitimate case for going after piracy. However, the flip side to this is that piracy might not be such a huge problem from them if it were not for the fact that the RIAA and its members are basically overcharging for their mediocre products, and treating the artists unfairly.
If they were to treat the artists more fairly, lower their prices CONSIDERABLY, and give us better products than Britney Spears, they might have a better chance with me... But unfortunately, they have now shown that they are all shady crooks, and I for one am now making it a point NOT to use any RIAA-approved services like Napster, and I am also making a special point not to buy any RIAA CDs.
I'm sure a lot of universities are agreeing to this in the hopes that it will keep students from "pirating" music and thus keep the RIAA off their backs, but seeing as the students will still have to pay for the songs if they want to burn them to CD or listen to them on a mobile device, just how useful will this be?
Both universities are on i2hub.com ;-)
Why pay the industry when i2hub has everything you want?
What sorts of student organizations exist to help get word out about this issue, and what have they done thus far?
If students start making a lot of noise about wanting this information disclosed, and the faculty tells Napster that the students want to know or they won't use the service, perhaps it might convince Napster to give the info.
I just hope someone cracks the stupid DRM scheme Napster uses now and puts them in their place.
Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
In Napster's defence, they're probably counting on giving steep discounts to drive adaptation, then raising the price to a less-steep discount when they have (lol) legitimacy. If the discounted price they gave to the initial colleges is known, everyone will want that price, and they will all be bargaining from a position of power. This kind of information is normal for companies to try and hide from the public.
Not that I'd shed a tear for the New Napster, but this doesn't sound nefarious to me.
The ______ Agenda
The problem is they would not be buying the music. The students would be renting it for the duration of their college education. After which time they would have to pay 99 cents a song to actually 'buy' it. Three bucks a month and you still have to buy the CDs in the end.