Slashdot Mirror
Napster Canada Launched
PunchMonkey writes "Just days after the Napster UK launch, Napster Canada is now online. Tracks start at CDN$1.19 and albums at CDN$9.95. Interactive streaming is also available for the first time in Canada for CDN$9.95 a month. Napster is the the third online music service to be launched in Canada (following PureTracks and ArchambaultZik), not including the branded Puretracks sites Sympatico Music Store and PureTracks from Telus." (Be prepared for a trio of rejection notices if you're neither running nor spoofing IE under Windows.)
Why would you start a new music service with higher prices than the existing competition? A lot of PureTracks' songs (though admittedly not all) are CDN$0.99. They must really be relying on name-brand recognition, though I doubt they are going to get much beyond "but, but, songs were free on Napster!" Still, nice to see competition, even if only of the inept kind. Now if they would just let me have my songs on both my home and work computers at the same time...
USA Today recently had this article on how some albums were cheaper to buy brand new in offline stores than online.
Basically, any track is sold as 99c (US). Any album on Napster is sold for $10. But then if the album is incomplete, what's being sold is a collection of songs, not album. So if the original CD has 21 songs and costs $13 in the store, but only 20 songs were licensed for online resale to Napster/iTunes, then the product will be a 20-song collection, and cost $19.80 respectively.
interesting that an online music pay service would decide to launch (and obviously spend a lot of resources on this launch, especially when it's so soon after the previously noted UK launch) in of all places, canada. why is this interesting? well, because in canada, file sharing (uploading, i believe) is legal. this means that people are really open about using p2p networks, and they're really popular. what makes napster think that with their drm scheme they can be more popular than the already (legal) free standard up there in canada? i'll be curious as to how the canadian people react to this, and the whole "wait-we're-getting-it-for-free-legally-already-an d-you-want-me-to-pay-for-it-though?" thing...
Canadians are currently permitted to borrow a friend's CD and make copies for personal, non-commercial use. However they are not allowed to make a copy for someone else. It is widely believed that this allows downloading but not uploading.
The CRIA has launched John Doe lawsuits against uploaders but recently suffered a legal setback when a judge ruled that they had failed to provide sufficient evidence of a copyright violation to subpoena the identities of some anonymous uploaders. However, members of the federal government have promised new legislation to close what they call "legal loopholes". That may just have been election year pandering. We'll have to wait and see.
In any case there are many Canadians who would willingly pay a reasonable amount per song to purchase music via download in order to get known quality, selection, and lack of liability. I would be one of them except that I refuse to pay money for DRM-encumbered files -- if I pay to buy something, I expect to own it.
I'm sorry, my wallet is not currently compatible with your store.
Napster is currently compatible with MS's flag OS's.
Other OS's are not supported at this time and never will.
If you are planning on getting me to spend my money on this store, the service will not be compatible and you should discontinue trying to do any business with me. If you will support *my* computer and *my* operating system, please continue.
Ah, and MS will eat you for lunch, good luck.
I've boughten majour label CDs such as Pearl Jam's vs. for as little as $5 CDN. Considering that at most places you can brin in CDs you don't want anymore for credit it becomes even cheaper. You'll bump into interesting people into music too and you can pick-up real bargains, indie-label, and out of print albums. I don't know how else you'd get a copy of Soundgarden's "Screaming Life/Fopp" EP
For anyone in the London, ON region may I recommend you check out Dr. Disc or City Lights-- which is also a great used bookstore with a cool vibe.
Your CPU is not doing anything else, at least do something.
Napster price comparison:
:-)
(at current exchange rate)
Napster Canada: $1.19 Canadian = $0.87 US
Napster USA: $0.99 US
Napster UK: 0.99 GBP = $1.80 US
Why do us Brits get such a raw deal? I guess music prices have always been this unfair. I was going to say that hopefully when some more services launch, competition will bring the price down, but this is the RIAA we are talking about...
I think I'll be sticking to independant labels and 2nd hand LPs
Homme petit d'homme petit, s'attend, n'avale
Funny thing about that; I fired up Safari under OS X, set the user agent to IE6Win, and then went in to the site. I think the reason they reject other browsers is that I was somehow able to bypass bits of their DRM and listen to their tracks. However, I quickly realised there was no content I was actually interested in that they were selling, so I haven't been back since. They may have since corrected that DRM mistake, but I won't be going back until they officially support OS X.
Perhaps the fact that *I* get paid in CAN$ and thus pay a higher price?
I don't make more in CAN$ than you do in USD, so no, it is NOT better for me, I am getting jacked on this (if I would buy anything from there, they don't let me as I don't run Windoze).
If you want to e-mail me, use my PGP Key.
I'd say Apple's *music* business is a darn sight more successful than Napster's, even ignoring iPod profits.
I would have no problem with renting music (aka paying for ad-free radio), if the price was right.
The problem I have with Napster is that they are not up-front with you about the fact that you are only renting music, not buying it, and they are charging you the same price as if you were buying it, which is absolutely asinine.
It is as though their business model depends on tricking people into thinking that they are buying music, as noone that I have talked to was even aware that they would not be buying music, and none of them decided to use the service after I informed told them that fact.
So the better question is why rent music in crappy DRM'd form when you can buy it in a more open format for the same price?
If you agree with any of this, feel free to repost it in the future.
Song of the piracy apologist:
(1) I don't personally believe in copying CDs illegally-- but I think we should avoid using unkind words like "piracy" to describe those that do -- instead, we should describe it as an "infringement", much like a parking infringement.
(2) I don't believe in the record companies emotively abusing the word "theft," but I do believe in emotively abusing words like "information," "sharing," and "Copyright Enforcement Militia."
(3) I believe that piracy is driven by "overpriced CDs" even though CDs have dropped in price over the years.
(4) I believe that piracy is driven by overly long copyright duration, even though most pirated works are recent releases.
(5) I believe that illegitimately downloading music is giving the author "free advertising". I don't buy any of the music I download, of course--but lots of other people probably do.
(6) I believe that ripping off the artists is wrong. The record companies always rip off the artists. Artists support P2P, except the ones that don't (like Metallica), and they don't agree with me, hence they're greedy or their opinion doesn't count or something.
(7) I believe that selling CDs is not a business model, but giving away things for free on the internet is.
(8) I believe that artists should be compensated for their work -- preferably by someone else. I mean, they can sell concert tickets (which someone else can buy) or sell t-shirts (to someone else) or something. As long as someone else subsidises my free ride, I'm coooooool with it.
(9) I believe in capitalism but only support music business models which involve giving away the fruits of ones labor for free.
(10) I believe that copying someone elses music, and redistributing it to my 1,000,000 "best friends" on the internet is sharing. Music is made for sharing. It's my right.
(11) I believe that record companies cracking down on piracy is "greed", but a mob demanding free entertainment is not.
(12) I believe that it's not really "piracy" unless you charge money for it, because, receiving money is wrong, but taking a free ride is fine.
(13) I believe that disallowing copying and redistributing music over Napster is the same as humming my favourite song in public. Because when I hum my favourite song in public, everyone likes it so much that they run home, get out their tape recorders and once they've got a recording of it, they aren't interested in hearing the original any more.
(14) I believe that when illegal behaviour destroys a business, it's "free enterprise at work".
(15) I believe piracy is simply "free advertising." Even though that's what radio is, but with the legal permission of the copyright holder. Basically, what I really want is to be able to choose the songs I want, listen to them whenever I want, but I don't want to have to pay for it. Essentially, I want the whole thing for free with no strings attached.
(16) I believe artists "deserve their money" only in cases in which the RIAA is the bad guy. But in piracy situations, I'm fully justified in ripping them off.
What I find amusing is that the pirates seem unable or unwilling to distinguish between creative activity and brainless copying.
Since a lot of the people here are GPL/OSS advocates: the "OSS way" applied to this domain is to learn how to play an instrument. Or how to sing or whatever. Then get together with a bunch of other people who can also play music, and make some noise.
One of the unfortunate things that has happened to the OSS movement is that a lot of the loudmouth advocates for it don't understand what it's really about. They view it primarily as a means to get free stuff, and then they turn their eyes from the free stuff to the non-free stuff and think to themselves "maybe I'm entitled to get that one for free too". The noble ideals of grass roots participation in the creative
Did anybody else watch their little flash movie about canada... http://napster.ca/flash.html I'm seriously pissed off, beavers biting people, hick looking guys drinking beer in almost every scene, leaf fan with stanley cup rioting, pick up truck skidding around (as if drunk, shows people drinking beer before and after) etc.. I am seriously appalled at this blatant stereo typical - hell I dont even think these are stereotypes, its just extremely messed up and I'm VERY insulted over this... meh, no way in hell they'll ever get my business...
I'm sorry, Chess, but you're referring to the same case as Saucepan, and the judge did not rule that uploading is legal. He expressed that it was similar to placing a photocopying machine in a library, yes, in an allusion to a recent Supreme Court of Canada case (CCH vs. Law Society of Upper Canada) but this opinion was purely obiter dicta, meaning that it does not have binding force. This case was tossed by the judge on evidentiary merits, or the lack thereof, so no new legal precedent has been set.
At present, the law still suggests that uploading is a violation of copyright with no exemption under the Private Copying provision.
This is the second time I've seen this in two days. Google for "Song of the piracy apologist" on slashdot and you'll be amazed. Moderators: please mod this back down.
Little Bricklets
Personally I use iTunes as my default music player, and since it isn't able to play Windows Media files (much less DRMed ones) that immediately rules out any services using that format. The apple DRM is also much less restrictive and is relatively easy to bypass by re-encoding songs to mp3, which in my mind makes it the lesser of evils, and most importantly, makes it less of a hassle. As a Canadian I've been waiting for the iTunes store to be available for quite some time, and can only hope that Napster's launch is a sign that Apple may not be far behind.
"So honest question. Other then the fact you like Apple, why iTunes? If you have an iPod, then I understand. If not, why? Not trolling, but really just curious."
:)
Uhm, perhaps its a philosophical choice not to support a Microsoft based platform (AAC from Dolby/Apple vs. WMA by Microsoft). Perhaps its an audio quality choice (to me, WMA sounds *tinny*). Perhaps its because of exclusive content on iTunes. Perhaps its because iTunes doesn't want to charge a subscription fee. Perhaps its because of the simplicity of the iTunes interface. Perhaps its because Apple is rather committed to keeping the prices reasonable. Perhaps the parent likes Apple and wants to support Apple. Perhaps the parent doesn't like Napster's name being used in conjunction with supporting the RIAA. Perhaps the parent doesn't like Roxio. Or, like you speculated, perhaps the parent owns an iPod like 55% of the other people buying portable MP3 players...
"Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*
OK, so it's been decided in a Canadian court that downloading is legal but uploading is not. Why would anyone use an overpriced service such as Napster Canada when allofmp3.com out of Russia will provide same tracks (with significantly more format options) for roughly 1/30th of the cost?
There is of course the issue of copyright and the status of tracks purchased from Russia but these have not been the basis of a legal case as of yet nor are they likely to be until they represent a sufficiently large bleeding wound in the side of the RIAA and their Canadian counterparts.
I personally spend about 30 bucks a month on allofmp3.com and consider my music downloading level to be approaching saturation (i.e. I download more tracks than I can listen to). Why don't the major labels realize that getting 30 bucks out of me a month for music is an incredible feat. I will not buy 2 CD's a month, I will not pay $.99 for an MP3, but I will pay 30 dollars in a month to have complete control over the music I listen to. By pricing tracks in this fashion, the industry drives users to piracy.
Besides, it's really nice to be able to download Metallica and Beatles tracks...
"Canada has lower standard of living as well as lower average income..."
But a *free* health care system (of various quality), supposedly a better education system than the U.S., cleaner streets, etc. But then again, since we're [USA] next door, they don't have to spend as much money per capita towards their defense.
"Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*
>albums at CDN$9.95 I get full album cd's at local pawn shops for $2.50-4 CDN.
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*