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...
Napster used to be so cool, but now it hangs out with the plastics and makes fun of regular people.
What happened, Napster, what happened?
$1.19 Can works out to 0.86 USD. Cheaper than the US non-subscriber version. Still not cheap enuff if you ask me.
Now IANAL and IANAC, but I thought that music downloading (though not sharing) was legal in Canada.
English is easier said than done.
Well, at least they only sue you for about $.72 on the dollar...
Come on iTunes get it in gear! I'm still waiting for mac iTunes.
The leader in online music sales can't seem to sell internationally.
---
I support spreading santorum
Who would someone pay to "rent" a song. If you cancel the service you loose the song. Unless they got a better license than any of the other services (besides iTMS)
Evolution or ID?
Anne Murray
...
....
......
Gordon Lightfoot
Rush
Celine Dion
Why do I need this again?
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.
0.99 USD = $1.37 CDN
...so technically Napster Canada is cheaper than iTunes. But this is assuming you only listen to music on your computer. They charge extra to transfer the song, unlike iTunes, where it's the same price whether you burn it to a CD, transfer it to your iPod, or whatever.
Napster and the others need to deal with the fact that they've been beaten by Apple.
Forget Napster, iTunes, et al.
The Russian equivalent to iTunes - allofmp3.com - is the way forward for all your music needs!!
You pay 1 cent a megabyte so $10 gets you a gigabyte of mp3 download - and you can pay using Paypal in case you're worried about your Credit Card getting stolen by a shady Russkie...
Cheap, cheerful and legal (at least in the eyes of Russian law) and they have a great selection (better than iTunes as it includes European chart music also).
Adrian
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.