Slashdot Mirror
Business Models: Napster to Go vs. iPod
CNet offers an interesting comparison between Napster to Go and iTunes.
For $15 a month, Napster to Go offers over 1 million songs (access to which lasts as long as subscription is valid), while songs for iPod must be purchased and last 'forever' (but it takes about $10,000 to fill an iPod). Is Napster to Go the future of digital music distribution? Would moving to an all-you-can-eat model hurt iPod business and balance the power among authors, studios, hardware makers and consumers?" It might take $10,000 to fill an iPod with songs downloaded from iTunes or with music converted to MP3 from newly purchased CDs, but there's a lot of downloadable and legit free music out there, not to mention Griffin's RadioShark.
Just get on the Napster 14 day free trial and convert their stuff to mp3.
The Farewell Tour II
how hard is it to ocnvert a file from napster to a cd or to mp3 where it is free of DRM?
...Or until they go bankrupt.
It all sounds impressive to begin with but there are too many catches.
"Who says nothing is impossible? Some people do it every day!" - Alfred E. Neuman
There is the cost factor but I myself would look at the format as well and for the most part AAC is the far better format. Hold on did I say for the most part, silly me it should be stated that it is the better format :)
:P
"BING BING BING" And the WINNER is AAC by clear KO!!!
Give my best to the wife and kids
"The most dangerous creation of any society is that man who has nothing to lose." - James Baldwin, American author
John Gruber has good commentary on this here and here that cuts through the marketing to point out the small print.
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
I have been listening to this guy's work for a while now: http://www.hypnotyza.com/radio/ [hypnotyza.com] I'm not affiliated with the site at all, just stumbled across it while reading a message board. He's a DJ who mixes live to hardrive and puts up the shows (about an hour long) as mp3's. Interesting stuff.
Judging from cable and satellite radio subscription fees just keep rising and rising.
I would expect nothing less from the music rental services..
I have a feeling that renting your music will be harder and harder to get stuff you want. (like some bands charging more than 9.99$ for an itunes album..)
itunes "playlist" which users post there mixes is very clever. When you select a song, you can search for playlists with that song on it (more songs you might like..)
However the napster "try" part is a way to discover new music I might or might not shell out cash for. Then again alot of bands have sites with free downloadable mp3s..
If my free 3 month trial of XM radio has taught me anything (I bought a car), there is a lot of music out there I don't care for.
...about Napster. Explicitly, anyway.
Once you stop paying your $15/month or $180/year, which will likely become $17, and $20, and so on, in the future, you no longer have access to your music.
If you want to keep it forever - or burn it to CD or use it on something other than an approved device - you have to buy it for a dollar. Just like with iTunes.
Also, that money you're spending on Napster is 180 songs, or 18 albums per year, on the iTunes music store, that you get to keep forever. I suppose it just all depends on your usage style.
That, and whether you want to use the hard-drive based music player with 92% market share.
To say nothing of the fact that Apple will introduce a subscription plan if they need to, anyway.
Do we really want to pay for everything monthly for as long as we live?
I don't mind a monthly fee for something I'll use within that month, or that has a time-based cost component, but you try to bill me monthly for something where I can pay once (even a higher up-front fee) and you'll lose my business. It's not worth it, long term.
'Sensible' is a curse word.
It's worth mentioning that you can spend 99c / track at Napster too if you really like that model. So at Napster you have more choice. FWIW I think Napster is easier to use too.
Didn't we already have an article on this (business model comparison), other than the "napster was cracked" one (where you can turn the crappy 128kbps stream into uncompressed WAVs and burn them).
Either ways, 128kbps isn't enough, even on a cheap player with cheap earphones, you can easily tell the difference, no need to be an audiophile either...
///<sig
sorry, that should have been http://www.hypnotyza.com/radio/
Besides that, who could really listen to all that music in the first place? I use my iPod for more than just playing music. My MP3 collection is 17 GB and even on shuffle I still hear things I haven't heard in years. The rest of the space is storage for files between work, home, and wherever else I am.
1 million songs? It would take you close to 6 years to listen to all of that music.
1;
I'm curious. Not counting Apple or Napster going out of business, what are the risks over time of changing your player? Is it likely or possible that you will 'loose' your music unless you intentionally break the DRM on all the songs you get?
A firewall can not protect you from yourself. Turn off what you do not need. Do not use the firewall to do your work.
I think this could go over quite well. An all-you-can-download plan where you can get as much as you want and only pay per month. Even if the general public won't download 14,000 songs in a month, they like the idea of being able to do something they probably never will do. This is why SUV's and all-you-can-eat buffet menus sell so well.
Powered by caffeine and sugar; BSD
I prefer the iPod model for the same reason I finance (purchase) all my cars. At the end of the day, when the payments stop, I want to have something to show for my money, er, lack of bank account.
:-)
Granted, if all you're looking for is a way to get a few crappy, er, "currently popular" songs to listen to for a week, Napster's your choice. If you're a collector like me, you wouldn't touch Napster with a 1,000,000' pole.
"Is Napster to Go the future of digital music distribution?"
No, FTP servers and underground P2P are. Morons.
I listen to a very very small percent of them. Of the 10K+ songs I have, very few get played twice. Do I need access to 1.5 million songs? No
It's either on the beat or off the beat, it's that easy.
I moderate therefore I rule!
--
Seems like Napster is forgetting that they are free songs on iTunes and a new one comes out every week. So it would take 10,000 weeks, which is about 192 years but then still don't have to pay $10,000 to file up your iPod. And there are more than just one free song per week so it is a lot less than 10,000 weeks.
Plus you can buy 15 songs per month and that makes it about 44 years to fill up your iPod (assuming a month is 4 weeks and you get the free song).
To tell you the truth, I'm kind of a mix between the two. I really think that podcasts are going down the right trail.
I used to manage all my music, scour for people I liked, and snatch up every song that I liked. I meticulously organized it, and spent quite a bit of time figuring out what I wanted to listen to, creating playlists, etc.
Then I got burnt out. I started listening to the radio a lot more often. I just wanted to listen to music. I didn't want all the hassle. That's why I'm now a Sirius satellite guy. I listen to their webstream, grab it and stick it on a portable player, or pick and choose some songs out of it that I personally want. Those, I go buy from iTunes.
Really, I just want music that I like. I also want my collection, so when I really want to hear something I can. Napster doesn't really meet either of those, but I can see how it would be appealing to people who would otherwise have thousands of cds. I just want music, and the flexibility to own some if I want it!
It's free, damn good, and legal:
http://bt.etree.org/
http://www.archive.org/audio/etree.php
Apple is using Napster like a fisherman uses chum.
Let Napster burn thru their millions trying to convince people that subscription is the way to go.
The moment... and I do mean the _moment_ apple sees this catching on and taking root, they will come out with iTunes subscriptions and blow napster out of the water...
A few other important things to compare between these services: Napster to Go is Windows Only; iTunes runs on Windows, MacOS, and Linux. Napster has protected-wma-format songs, iTunes uses protected AAC files. (Some mp3 players play both, some neither, but many will only play one or the other, so it's an important consideration.) Finally, it's important to note that while Napster will allow you get download many songs for that flat rate, some songs cost 99c just to download, and all require payment to keep, burn to CD, or the like. If all you ever do is burn CD's of your music, then Napster is no better than iTunes. For the true DRM-opponent, though, nothing beats those shiny silver discs you can listen to, copy, rip, keep, and own.
This 10000$ to fill an iPod is a bit exaggerated - keep in mind that a typical iPod owner has managed to accumulate a considerable CD collection over time. I have been collecting music ever since CD's became widely available in my area, which means that I've had roughly 10 years to acquire more than 100 disks by the time iPod appeared. And that equals the capacity of iPod mini, even without breaking the law:)
Subscription is definitely the way to go for content delivery. Ever since going with Zip.ca (Canadian Netflix) I watch about 15 movies a month. When I had to go to blockbuster, I would hate to spend $5 for every movie I rented. Cable companies found this model works a long time ago. ISPs are also moving to this model by giving people the ability to download as much as they want. People are willing to pay more if they feel like they aren't being limited in what they are getting.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
...not iPod compatible. Thats a show-stopper for the 20 MILLION iPod users out there.
It's just you. If RadioShack won the case that would be a really terrible precedent.
Yeah, $10,000. Riiiiight. Show of hands. How many people already have dozens or hundreds (or even thousands) of CDs on hand already? OK. Now then, how many of you have a decently stocked public or college library nearby? OK.
Now then, how many of you are actively downloading stuff from legitimate online sources of free MP3s? And what about Usenet or other P2P sources? How many of you already have MP3 libraries totalling in the hundreds of gigabytes?
And how many of you keep your mp3 players 100% full?
As far as it comes to legal music...
Buying your music > renting your music
OK, so some performing musicians accept etree. But how can we be sure that their songwriters also accept etree?
I can buy a song on iTunes for $1 and keep it for the rest of my life, lets just say thats 80 years.
Since the Napster songs go away as soon as you stop subscribing I need to pay $15 a month for the next 80 years. That folks, is $14,400.
Considering I still listen to my grandfather's 78's that price just keeps going up and up.
Introducing Microsoft Vacuum 1.0 The first Microsoft product that doesn't suck.
not to be an asshole, but allofmp3.com is the cheapest with no drm. It was nice untill i found out it was all pirated.
Now lots of people aren't going to like that and I can see their reasons, but for me I work from home and don't drive. For $10 a month my music is almost always with me through my PC. Napster To Go takes this a bit further you can have your music anywhere as long as you have your music player, but for a slightly increased fee. Apple have a much more traditional model which some folk like the permanancy of - though personally I'd be frustrated at the cost of an album through iTunes being not much different than buying the CD in Walmart. Nonetheless, their sales levels show there's a healthy market out there.
What's important is that finally we have these models available to us - for so long we said the music industry has to respond if it's to stop downloads. Sure it's not perfect, indeed DRM has it's problems, Nonetheless, the ability to play almost half a million songs for a reasonable fee is a huge step there and shows what putting pressure on the industry can achieve. Now we need to keep up that pressure over file formats, DRM and proper open source access to our music.
I'm a happy Rhapsody user, for $25 every three months. The one important qualification, of course: I spend roughly 12 hours a day near a Windows computer. For me at least the article is totally right about the 'value proposition' -- Rhapsody saves me money if it saves even one hour a month trying to find music online, and it offers a variety of music that far outstrips the 8 CDs per year I could buy with the equivalent money. Admittedly I don't have those 8 CDs at the end of the year -- but having any music I want, instantly, for a year, is worth a hell of a lot more than having 8 CDs for, realistically speaking, about five years before they break or the format shifts again ...
...
The criticisms about the interface definitely apply to Rhapsody too, though -- playlists suck, OS integration sucks, locating music is mediocre, software is Windows only. Definitely can't hold a candle to iTunes. 90% of my music used to be illegal downloads. Now 90% of my music is paid for, via Rhapsody, and it saves me money. If iTunes offers a similar service for $10 a month, they'll be getting my money in a heartbeat.
All of that, of course, assumes I don't need this stuff to be portable. If iTunes to go has come out by the time I'm *not* spending 12 hours a day near a Windows box, they'll be getting another iPod sale and a subscription. If it hasn't, it'll be Napster
Now you know.
... I realised I can't use Napster-to-go on my iPod. A quick search found this page, which is Napsters point of view on the Napster vs iPod "war":
a ps ter.html
http://www.napster.com/using_napster/ipod_and_n
This is beyond true.
;) )
I know that apple's iTMS works only with the iPod as a digital media player. I currently own an iPod (albeit, the short-live iPod+HP), and am about to send it in for service (under warranty, thankfully) due to hard drive spin-up problems (or corrupted FAT sectors, or something). I know that if it weren't under warranty, the next thing I buy will most likely be a Creative Jukebox or something.
I've only bought about 14 songs on iTMS, mainly because my dad bought me a prepaid gift card, but if it weren't for JHymn (google it, quite a neat tool), I would lose all those songs. I plan on buying whatever player offers the best value, but I do like the iPod (and hope that the next one isn't quite a dud as this one
DJing isn't music. It's a guy taking a bunch of records that *other people made* and mixing them. Sonic artform, yes, music, no.
Make me a friend and I'll mod you up
I'd rather spend $180 on something else. I don't spend close to $180 per year on music... and if I quit or if Napster goes out of business, then I have zero to show for it.
Or, even worse, Napster could raise it's rates after I'm pretty committed.... or introduce higher-priced music categories that don't fit into the $15/month category.
but there's a lot of downloadable and legit free music out there
Say you have an independent band whose members write the band's songs. How can they prove in a court of law that the songs they wrote are in fact original musical works?
Anyone remember Space Quest IV? In one scene, Roger goes to the mall and visits a store called Radio Shock to buy a connector for his PocketPal(tm) dumb terminal laptop. Due to trademark problems the name of the store was changed to Hz. So Good in SQIV's CD-ROM release.
From this I'm forced to conclude that if Radio Shack sues they may very well win or get a settlement.
N4st0r, trixx0r h0bb1tz0rz! Th3y st0l3 0ur pr3c10uzz!
This is what I said the last time this topic came up.
:)
Why is a story that's primarily about Napster posted on apple.slashdot.org? I thought stories about Napster went on yro.slashdot.org.
The only surefire protection against Microsoft infections is abstinence. - The Onion
I hear ya ;-) Whatever you want to call it, done right it can be quite enjoyable.....
Semi-related, but that's why I started listening to folk music. It's not for everyone, but I've just become more open minded as to the general appreciation of music. Hell, I don't even pirate tunes anymore. Not worth the hard drive space they take up.
Based on the way you act and think (and I apply that term loosely), I'd guess about 8. Shouldn't you be doing your homework and getting to bed early instead of posting on Slashdot?
You can still get old versions of winamp at oldversion.com The Update to 5.08 was the fix to WMA-DRM.
At the end of a year if you decide not to subscribe any longer, you have lost 12*$15=$180 worth of music, while you could have invested it in iTunes and obtained 180 songs = ~500MB of music. Napster is definitely not teh future of music. When I buy something I want to keep it irrespective of whether I stop subscribing. The longer I subscribe to Napster, the more I have to lose when I stop my subscription.
"When the only tool you own is a hammer, every problem begins to resemble a nail." - Abraham Maslow (1908-1970)
Disregarding for a moment, the fact that this will work for precisely as long as it takes for someone to work out how to remove the DRM, has anyone commented on how artists get compensated under this model?
It seems to me that the best that could be hoped for is some (small) percentage of the revenue subscription is divided up by the proportion of downloads per artist.
Because a subscription service will encourage more indiscriminate listening behaviour, this may have some strange consequences. On a positive note, it may spread the money paid to artists out more widely.
On the other hand, it may also mean that less popular releases are swamped by the monthly traffic in the latest manufactured pop album, and make even less than they do these days.
It would be interesting if a subscription service tracked what you actually kept/listened to, rather than downloaded, listened to once, and deleted. It might even encourage the production of less rubbish.
Of course, the main point, from the perspective of publishers, is that they get a guaranteed income stream regardless of the quality of the music they produce, which may just remove the last tiny bit of incentive they have to try and produce music that people actually want to listen to.
... that's the same comment that gets posted on here every time a subscription music service comes up.
The point could be equally well made about every other subscription service, though -- why rent city water that keeps getting more expensive and goes away when you stop paying, when, with a larger initial investment, you could dig your own well and have water forever?
The answer is, gee, they both make sense in different situations. It depends *how much* more expensive the initial investment is than the subscription, and whether the specific resource you are buying will always be sufficient, or it would be better to have a provider committed to keeping new sources available.
You acknowledged that it depends on your usage style, but I just wanted to drive this point home: pointing out that a subscription service stops when you stop paying for the subscription, and therefore is different from a one-time purchase, is no longer insightful. They're both different; they both make sense sometimes.
Personally, I pay $100 per year for Rhapsody. For me it makes sense -- there's no way I could purchase enough music for $100 to satisfy my needs, and downloading music for free would cost me literally thousands of dollars in terms of time spent. If it doesn't make sense for you, fair enough -- but don't act like it's a blinding insight to point out that I'm renting rather than buying.
If musics are all subscription based, there will be less incentives for the record company or individual band to create good music. There will be more random "test" listening. Good music under the pay and own model provides a clear picture which music sells and their popularity. This is the same reason why I don't buy CD. I only want to pay for the song I want to hear.
iTunes is like $1 per song, meaning it would cost $10,000 to fill an iPod.
Napster charges $15/month for unlimited downloads, right?
Do the math. Find out if you really download more than 15 songs per month, and that will indicate which one is the better deal. Cause who would pay $15/month for a service when you only download perhaps once a week?
1. iPod is a data holding device with its main function as a mucis player. Its is more flexable than just another music player.
2. Most people want to own their music. Who in their right mind is going to have this big collection of music that; 1. isnt really theirs 2. Can easily just go poof gone if you dont keep paying up, even if you downt add to it for the whole month.
3. The mention that one can buy their music off napster as well is irrelevent becuase you have to pay a monthly fee.
4. It is irrelevent to say it would take $10,000 to fill up an iPod. What the hell is that trying to say? If the auther saying that the bigger the storage on the ipod the more we'll have to spend to fill it up? NO SHIT. Last i checked that was a good thing. The message trying to get across right there is bullshit.
Maybe I'm not typical either, but I'll bet the typical user is closer to 550 than 10,000. And how did I get my 550? Mostly ripped from CDs in my existing collection, plus about 90-100 bought from iTunes over the last year. That's $90-$100 for me instead of $15x12 or $180. And I get to burn them to CD if I want (and I do want), and keep them for as long as I want. My monthly bill? Whatever I happened to buy that month. Maybe $2 or $3 or even zero. The Napster math makes absolutely no sense to someone like me. I don't want to rent my music, I want to own it. It's cheaper this way too.
Ummm, tell that to the Lindows (now Linspire) folks.
From the site:
*It is necessary to maintain a Napster subscription in order to continue access to songs downloaded through the Napster service.
i've seen this in print ads as well. does it really mean that you can get all the songs you want and only play them as long as you pay? how does this work? what if i download 10,000 songs and cancel my subscription?
there's a catch in here...
Doe iPod have that 2x fast forward where you can still hear the sound? Because then it's only 3 years.
The Farewell Tour II
There isn't that much music out there that's even marginally interesting. I truly enjoy just a couple dozen albums out of tens of thousands they stock (both iTunes and any other music service). Why would I pay $180 a year (that's what $15 a month boils down to) to have access to them? Every year my favorite bands release maybe six CDs that are worth buying, total. That's roughly $60-70 in second hand CDs, complete with hard copy of non-DRM uncompressed audio and booklet. Three times LESS tha their "cheap" service.
I subscribed for Real Rhapsody for their trial period. There were a few CDs that I wanted to listen to before I bought them. At the end of this two week period I've cancelled my subscription.
That's what these services are for me - glorified "CD preview" shops. I think I'll subscribe for a month of their services later this year, because I've accumulated a list of CDs that I need to see if they're worth buying.
I filled my iPod with the free songs from the tops of Pepsi bottle. The price : free, of course there was the slight inconvience and cost of 30,000 Pepsis and the multiple caffine ODs...
While it seems like a good idea, the technical implementation is lacking. I tried it with a Creative Zen Micro. When listening to N2G tracks there is a three or so second delay before songs start playing. Very anoying, especially with shorter songs. In addition, I was forced at one point to take out my battery (the player crashed), and this caused all of the N2G music to refuse to play. According to the Napster rep, in order to get it to play again, you have to reformat (!) your drive and resync your music (an hour long procedure with a few gigs of music.) Interesting idea, though I didn't really like the idea that I had no control over the music, that at Microsoft's or Napster's whim (or technical inability) my music would no play. I'd rather buy it.
In the beginning the universe was created. This made a lot of people very angry and is widely considered as a bad move.
ridiculous. dj'ing at the top level of manipulation is equivalent to a live performance
(especially when making something compelling out of raw loops)
-mkb
I can't understand how Napster or even the more successful ITMS manages to make any money. I don't know a single person who's used either service. Are these companies operating at a loss? Obviously it takes money to keep napster running, the ITMS I can understand, it has all of Apple behind it to prop it up even if it's not making a dime for them, but how is Napster supporting itself?
Maybe I'm just being irrational here but it would seem that Napster is doomed unless a 3rd party is injecting funds into it.
What I've been doing for months now is using winamp's internet radio feature along with an awesome plug-in called Stream Ripper. It works well, and you get the quality that the stream is at, usually a very acceptable 160-192kbps.
If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
It might take $10,000 to fill an iPod with songs downloaded from iTunes or with music converted to MP3 from newly purchased CDs, but there's a lot of downloadable and legit free music out there, not to mention... ... not to mention, you can use your iPod as a general purpose USB/FW disk drive, back up your data to it, store and view photos on it, and record your own music and audio notes...
If they really want to beat the iPod, give me a Palm with a hard drive...
Burn the songs to CD (A music CD, not a CD of the iTMS files), and reimport it in whatever format you like. Never have to loose anything.
-- My work here is done. If you need me again, just admit to yourself that you're screwed, and die.
They'll say the Napster plan is a waste of money until it catches on and Apple offers the same deal. Then they'll say it's the greatest idea ever and Steve Jobs is a genius. BTW, isn't this basically the EFF plan of charging some flat monthly tax and then downloading whatever music you want?
Vote for Pedro
As I understand it, the Napster music player has to be connected to your computer periodically to check whether you still have an account. Has there been any work on figuring what magic bit of information it is seeking? It seems that one could devise a system in which the Napster device connects to your computer, is fooled into thinking it got approval for the next time period, and all the music stored on it would continue to play. Or is this thought just a bit of naive thinking on my part?
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
....and knowing is half the battle!
(G...I...Jooooooe!)
...do people take up loans to pay monthly instead of one big up-front payment? Yes. Are there rental shops for TVs/Stereos/Computers/whatever? Yes. Do people buy stuff on credit? Yes.
Now you might argue it is not wise, or rational. But people have a tendency to live here and now, and never mind that they'll be paying for it later. Particularly since the media has played it so that your teens/20s is *the* most important time of your life.
However, I think they won't do well because the s/n ratio is almost as bad as p2p networks.. ok so you got a ton of music, but you actually like very little. People already got that.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
There should be a +1 Flamebait mod.
I've been trying out Napster, and it does fill a niche in my life. Without it, my choices were buy or "steal" it. Now, I can hear a song from an album, or a friend can tell me about a really great band, and I can try them out.
If I like it, then it's off to AllOfMp3.com to purchase a nice high quality version. If not, then I'm not out any extra money. Why would I want to spend even a dollar on a song I won't listen to twice?
Other people like to point out there's other ways to get that music. None of them is as simple and straightforward as Napster. Consistent (if not great) quality, easy searching, easy downloading. Those things are worth the $15/month to try out - risk free - new music. I haven't used P2P once since getting it. Why bother with the hassle?
Recent news has caused me to change my mind. I was under the impression that the rights apple gave ITMS users were there to stay. But now I see that ITMS users' rights can change at any time.
I'm sticking with CDs at the moment. I won't buy DRMed CDs. It's not too bad, most new major label music is crap anyway.
http://www.hypnotyza.com/radio/ [hypnotyza.com] I'm not affiliated with the site
Really?
Speaking of free good music ... I compiled a list of sites that host indie music, nearly all of which have completly free downloads. You can see it here. Worth checking out for anyone whose listening habits aren't limited to Top 40 Radio...
Who doesn't like free music?
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
The real revolution will occur when Napster and similar services become cheap enough that people would rather just sign up and have an easy way to download music that's fast, reliable, and high-quality instead of shaky, low-quality, and (oh yeah) illegal file-sharing services.
I could theoretically build myself a car, and it would be cheaper and built entirely my way, but it's easier for me to just buy a car because the product that the big manufacturers offer is affordable, quick, reliable, and high-quality.
The same model applies to music. If I wasn't worried about quality, selection, or, most importantly, portability with Napster I would be there already.
My blog.
An IPod takes $10,000 to fill up, but you get the songs forever.
How much will it take to guarantee you get Napster songs forever? Assuming they stay open for all time, assuming their price remains constant (HAHAH) and assuming a 2% savings account, you will need to deposit $5,994 to pay $9.99 a month forever.
Ipod sells because its COOL (and a little due to apple well designing it's software)...it's got NOTHING to do with IPOD vs napster on price. There is a "herd" mentality when a consumer device becomes the "hip" thing to have. And right now, IPOD and IPOD mini and IPOD shuffle is the "hip" thing to have.
My mother wants an IPOD because she likes the way the case looks.
I know a lot of families who give their kids $10 and $20 monthly allowances for the iTunes music store. Then tack on to that whatever the parents want to buy for themselves.
With Napster's plan, you can download a lot more than that allowance would get you. And especially when we're talking about kids, how many of them are going to care whether or not they technically "own" 95 percent of the garbage they bought 10 years down the road?
Least Favorite Slashdotted Companies
Where can I buy a pre-paid card that allows me to download 100 of my favourite tunes for 100 bucks (in MP3 format)?
You don't even need to do that. Like your post's parent said, Google for JHymn. It's a brilliant tool. Just strips the DRM from the .M4P, though it does leave your iTunes account info in there. So you've got first-generation quality (instead of second- or third-gen, from the CD-burn + re-encode) without the DRM.
[(5 * 12) * 80] * $10 = $48,000, if you buy all you music for the rest of your life like that, or you can just pay the flat rate and have unlimited tracks.
Hell, only buying one album a month, your still paying $9,600. And I doubt a 20 year old music junkie listens te that few music.
I'm a signature virus. Please copy me to your signature so I can replicate.
For me, there's no reason not to use Napster. I have spent $3000 over the last 10 years buying CDs and what-not, most of which I don't listen to. Spending $300 a year on 20 or so CDs doesn't even come close to the total number of records coming out over the course of a year that I want to listen to, not to mention all the catalog titles that I may want.
For $180 a year, I can download whatever I want from a million tracks on Napster and listen to it whenever I want on my Archos Gmini 400. I don't mind paying $180 a year forever, because it beats the $300 a year I have been paying for reduced service.
And it won't be more than a few years until you can get all this access on your cell phone, too. Of course this is the future of music.
is worth a hell of a lot more than having 8 CDs for, realistically speaking, about five years before they break or the format shifts again ...
What kind of CDs have you been using? Anyway, most people I know with huge music collections have been making them digital. Rip once, burn copies as CDs break. Your average 2-300GB HDD can keep 400 CDs (maybe 600 in FLAC, thousands if you compress down to same size as online purchases). Albums, not songs.
As for back-ups of that again, that's usually RAID1 over internet/sneakernet, if you get my drift. Plus then they're easy to transfer to e.g. an iPod.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
I listen to a LOT of music by a lot of artists. I am quite the music nerd. However, I don't particularly care about my own personal ownership of the music medium. Sure, I should always be able to go out and buy the CD, but for the most part my ideal situation would be one in which there were a variety of competing subcription services to keep the price reasonable for the rest of my life.
How amazing would it be if in the future we'd all pay a certain amount a month but we would have access to all music ever created whenever we wanted? Imagine how much everyone would learn about music when we could check out a recommendation with incredible ease and no additional cost. Even my fellow copyright infringers will filter out suggestions because it can be a real pain to find and actually acquire decent copies of the music. The main problem I have is obtaining the variety of music I want to listen to and then somehow storing it all. A subscription to every artist ever seems far preferable to "owning" a single CD.
I also refuse to use the iTunes store anymore, because unless I have faith that the iTunes/iPod combo is still going to be my favorite 3, 5, 10 years from now, I'm going to be burning a lot of cds in order to convert the stuff I have bought to another format.
Napster's idea is great, and I really, really hope that Apple picks up on it, because I would sign up in a second. The ease of access to endless varieties of music without breaking my pocket book would actually make me curtail my current illegal methods. If I didn't have a Mac and an iPod, I'd probably be getting on the Napster train.
Not true at all. When you buy from the iTMS, the music goes into iTunes, not to an iPod.
From iTunes, you can either play it as is or route the music to other places such as burning a CD, which lets you play it in a portable CD player, car player, etc. You can also rip that CD in both iTunes OR ANY OTHER MUSIC PROGRAM, to put on ANY OTHER MUSIC DEVICE.
It's really the convenience and hyperfast synching that confuses people that iTMS is ONLY for iPods, but it's more true to say that iTMS is a way of getting music into iTunes. Where it goes from there is still largely up to you. It's not forever locked onto an iPod when you buy the track.
None of the supported music players on napsters page http://www.napster.com/compatible_devices/index.ht ml(there are 7 total) seem to hold more than 20 gigs, although several of them support video playback, so on one hand, i could pay "$10,000 to fill an iPod" or I could just not be able to store that much music, well, I guess it is a great money saving method.
No smoking sigs indoors.
Oh, and not to mention, I like being able to burn my songs into regular audio CDs. WMA sucks for this reason alone. Their DRM is worse than Apple's.
That being said, I find myself downloading LESS and LESS from that source. I am instead purchasing more of my songs from the iTunes music store. Why?
Because that is what most of the 20somethings that go to the local clubs think is cool and they want to hear because that is what the record companies have told them is "good"
If it IS on iTunes I typically use the underground source as a preview, even though the quality is generally excellent.
Not only is it $1 but I can even circumvent my $1 and get Pepsi to pay for my songs by drinking Pepsi products. Thus far Pepsi has paid for 171 songs for me from the iTunes music store. I have no doubt that I will be able to fulfill my current "Wish List" iTunes playlist during the current pepsi promotion, and that is an additional 300 or so songs (and no I am not a fat piece of shit that doesn't excersize and eats McDonalds all day unlike one of my co-workers).
Simply Put, Napster sucks the sweat off a dead mans balls.
The editor's article summary refers to the iTunes Music Store (iTMS) in the first sentence, referencing the C|Net article. But then for the rest of the blurb, the copy seems to be lifted from Napster's site, which instead refers to iPod when they're actually talking about the iTMS. I'm not trying to be pedantic here, but there's a very real difference that the Timothy has failed to either state clearly or understand himself. Look up at the window title for further confirmation of this.
Yes, the business models for iTMS and iPod are quite clearly intertwined, but they are not interchangeable. Comparing a temporary licensing system to a storage and playback device is just daft.
Now carry on arguing whether the magazine subscription or the nice hardwood magazine rack is the wiser investment.
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
What if you download a bunch of songs from napster and than just never hook it back up to the service again? Will it expire? And if so, what if your computer breaks, how can you keep your songs updated?
or else!
I'm an iTunes user, just to get that out of the way.
I currently have 1,379 songs in my Library. (I purchased around 300 from the iTunes store, and about 50 of those were free from Pepsi.)
Of those 1,379 songs, I probably listen to 400-500 on a regular basis. I would say 10% of my music collection rarely gets listened to at all. (Maybe occassionaly when they pop up on party shuffle.)
The Napster-to-go ads are leading people to believe that they can fill an MP3 player with 10,000 songs... but sort of overlook the fact that most of those 10,000 would never get listened to in the first place. Unlimited choice just means people will be more likely to download songs and then NOT listen to them.
With iTunes, I get a song I know I'll like 90% of the time. With Napster to go I'd have 10,000 songs, yes.. but I'd probably still only listen to about 1000 of them anyway. At the end of the year, I've paid 180 bucks for a bunch of songs I never listened to.
The adverts are somewhat misleading, in my opinion. They tell you this great sounding number, and people never consider that the number might be outrageous.
if you had ever used itunes, you would know that
1. albums generally cost $9.99, not $1/song
2. most people don't want the entire album. this is the reason you would use itunes over just going to a store and purchasing the album.
To all Apple fanbois.
Stop getting yourself in a fit thinking someone is trying to pull your head out of Apples ass, you can keep it there and pretend everyone is like yourself. Many people (teens come to mind) would benefit from the subscription model. For $10-15 a month which is probably cheaper then the cost of one typical CD, you basically get unlimited choice of songs. There is a generation of people listening to music that only care about what is on the charts right now and only listen to one hit wonders and maybe some groups that last 2-3 years before they reinvent themselves or create another one hit wonder in a duo with another failing artist. The RIAA likes this model and the kids fell right into it. My teenage daughter listens to a typical queue of about 40 or so songs on a FIFO basis. There is no desire for her to listen to last years or even 6 month old "hits". Why keep buying CDs or even the "NOW" series volume X+1 when for the same price she can choose what she wants when she wants? There is a market for this.
I am the opposite
I listen to just about the same shit I did 15 years ago. Pink Floyd's "Wish you Were Here", comes to mind. I play that from start to finish a few times a month either in my car, in the office, on my computer etc... Same with older Metallica, Black Sabbath and so on. I have them on vinyl somewhere and I have them on CD as well, I would buy them again if I had to but I am not going to pay per month to listen to them in a compressed format regardless if I would own that compressed format or not.
But... I still use the subscription service to play around and find new stuff, then I buy the CD if I really like it. If I am not worried about the compression, I pay $.79 or $.99 to buy it from that same service.
Bottom line, we both get an advantage from a subscription model.
uhm, correct me if I'm wrong, but don't most ipod buyers already own decent-to-large-to-extensive music collections?
Who's gonna spend 10k$ to fill their ipod?
Just what the world needs - a system that gives the record companies even more clout than they have now.
Let's consider the sad case of artist X. The record company gets pissed at artist X and decides to show her who's boss. They accuse her of violating her contract, and all of a sudden poof! Her music is gone from Napster and shortly thereafter gone from her fans' collections as well; her entire artistic existence obliterated. Pretty nifty huh?
I know what you're saying: the music industry screw over artists to keep them in line? You've got to be crazy - that would never happen!
Very few people buying iPods own 0 music.
Add in one's existing music collection, as well as free downloads (such as podcasts, free & legal music, and legal streaming radio capture), and the "$10,000" comes down fast. The $15/month, however, stays right where it is.
It all comes down to simple "buy" vs. "rent".
These decisiojns happen all the time - think of major purchases like a home or a car, there are both choices - 36 mo. car lease vs. buying the car - rent an appartment vs locking in that 30 yr. mortgage.
On the surface, looks like the answer is simple - offer both because there is choice and then you let the people decide - and that is a simple answer and I think that it is a good one.
But consider the flipside for a moment - these major purchases I just mentioned offer both models from a financial model too - not everyone can afford the downpayment and 30 yr mortgage, some people like a new car every three years and would rather rent. Point is, these comparisons aren't that comparable.
The original slashdot article was comparing business models and the problem with the $15/mo napster model is that there is no "rent-to-own" scenario. There is NO ONE in their right mind who would rather rent music for 20 yrs. versus buy the albumns they like for a lifetime - especailyl the way that music sort of picks you - we listen to the same 80's trackes over and over - country music, old hip-hop, whatever.
So perhaps the better model is a "rent-to-own" where you pay a lower monthly amount ($10) and you get X songs per month to download and Y ( X) to 'register' as your forever and they don't count against your X downloads next month and don't expire when you stop paying.
Vioa! You get to 'try' new music and 'keep' the stuff you like - all for one low price per month. And just like a cell phone, if you want more songs to get registered forever, just pay an additional fee - just liek a per minute fee over your air minutes.
Now right now the $0.99/track, $9.99/albumn model is WAY easier payment plan thatn my cell phone bill, but perhaps there is something to the convolated system AT&T, Cingular, SPrint, and others have created.
I only came here to do two things; kick some ass, and drink some beer...looks like we're almost out of beer.
I can get up in front of an audiance and whistle as well for a live performance. That does not mean it is music.
On that note, I do like dj'ing and it is an entertaining art form which some people have mastered, just not done with instruments.
Will we ever get to the point of pay-per-use for our music?
Of course, it would have to be something small.
Cheers,
Ashley.
d. You acknowledge that some aspects of the Service, Products, and administering of the Usage Rules entails the ongoing involvement of Apple. Accordingly, in the event that Apple changes any part of the Service or discontinues the Service, which Apple may do at its election, you acknowledge that you may no longer be able to use Products to the same extent as prior to such change or discontinuation, and that Apple shall have no liability to you in such case
In short... you don't own it. At least, not in the shiny plastic disks kind of way.
Also worth noting: The last update of the iTunes application limits you to five connections per day when sharing playlists. The update previous to that disabled the application's ability to get CD track names on songs ripped with applications other than iTunes.
It's sad that Apple feels the need to hobble one of its finest applications for its core market of home users because the RIAA's panties are in a bunch.
I paid the going retail price for a Windows screen reader and got a free Unix computer!
However, people seems to have no problem with Netflix, satellite radio and cable tv which all use a very similar model. "Netflix is like Napster for movies, but they mail you the DVD and you can only have 3 at a time". With cable and satellite services you're stuck even more, your only choices are a finite number of preset channels. What's so bad about renting your music when you rent most of your other stuff?
The Math Maestro Tutoring Services in Seattle
That's like saying that an instrument isn't music because it is just taking a bunch of noises made by an instrument and mixing them.
"The original slashdot article was comparing business models and the problem with the $15/mo napster model is that there is no "rent-to-own" scenario."
Napster allows you to also buys songs for $1 and burn them to CDs. So you have both options, unlike Apple where you can only buy.
Vote for Pedro
yes, but then napster changes with the times. the 30 year old fluff that is not worth the time on their servers get tossed and then you have no music to listen to.
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
+1, "Ice Burn"
For people complaining about the "rental" aspect of the movie, do you find Napster to Go more or less acceptable than Netflix?
--
RumorsDaily
I got the Napster Free Trial and found a great way to bypass the DRM. Step 1) Hit Play Step 2) Hit Record (you can use any mp3 recorder to record what's being played on your computer. Just mute your system noises, let the song play, and stop the recording when the song stops. I use Creative Mediasource) Bam, instant MP3; great quality, no DRM to worry about. It's less of a pain than you think. The one drawback is having to do your own id3 tags, but that's a small price to pay for free, under the radar, good quality music.
There are about 200 million adults in the US, and there were about 10 million total iPods sold as of the beginning of the year. It's hard to imagine that 20 million iPods have been sold total as of today, just a quarter later, given that sales in the holiday quarter were 4.5 million. Also:
(1) a large percentage of the iPod sales were overseas
(2) many people have bought multiple iPods (especially with the new Shuffle)
(3) many children and teens own iPods
In short, I don't believe that 1 in 10 U.S. adults has an iPod.
That being said, they're everywhere in San Francisco as well.
you will need that extra 20GBs...i went to the itunes store and blew $10000 and then was like "oh no! my ipod is full!" oh yeah apple's got this cool thing called DRM..it makes itunes the best ever with ipod! p.s. you could actually use the ipod's space to transfer files too
Some people believe 1-1=3 and for the sake of being politically correct, we should respect their differences
Only a committee of pin-headed MBAs could come up with a strategy as incredibly stupid and shortsighted as Napster's strategy. Take a good look at what's going on here. The companies involved in this venture have been unable to come up with a hardware/software combination that is superior to iPod/iTunes, so they have decided to compete by offering an easily copied payment/distribution system. Crazy.
I think the subscription model will fail. But, even if I'm wrong, Napster is incredibly foolish to use their distribution and payment method as the primary differentiator. Why? Because, as pointed out in the article, Apple can very easily start their own subscription service and usurp Napster's "advantage" overnight.
I guess I can't blame them too much. Making really nice, easy-to-use hardware and software is very difficult, expensive and requires talented, creative and innovative engineers. Unfortunately, those types of people are in short supply at companies like Dell and Napster. Dell built it's business by innovating in operations and direct hardware distribution. Napster is just a bunch of VCs, MBAs and other twits trying to make a buck by leveraging a well-known brand name they bought at a fire sale.
I'm going to hold onto my Apple stock...I think there is very little threat from these guys.
It's signing up for a service that sells you music which lets you download songs and convert them to Mp3. I don't see anything wrong with using a free trial and then quitting before you have to pay. It's the risk the service providers have to deal with when providing a free trial. The only real issue is bypassing DRM, but that's not stealing.
Its done for no other reason that it "can be done"..
Around here it doesn't matter if you like the song, video game rom, you have the right to get it on, the internet mon..
Damm the man, forget about copyright..
etc.. etc...
It's the age old rent vs buy. The business models have not changed just the mediums.
In this I am assuming legit customers and not people stealing from Napster. For the monthly plan you can download X amount of songs but do not keep them. The DRM is set up as such to limit that. So you are merely renting the songs.
Itunes, you buy the track and it is now yours.
Assuming you own no CDs then yes, it would cost $10,000 to fill an IPOD. The difference is, if I spent $10,000 at Napster, I would still end up not owning a single song.
If you just want lots of variety and the ability to listen to many songs then Napster is the way to go. If you want buy music and keep it, Itunes is a clear winner.
Rent vs Own , same idea, new medium.
"It's better to be a pirate then join the Navy"
I agree with that, I just won't go as far as to call it music.
Make me a friend and I'll mod you up
I have glanced through the Napster to go website, and am still confused...
If I download music thru the napster service and put the music on my compatable portable player, how does my player know if I cancel my Napster to Go subscription?
Would I be required to 'sync' my player every day????
I never said it wasn't a credible performance art form, I just said it wasn't music.
Make me a friend and I'll mod you up
There's a difference. When I play a musical instrument, I am creating sound. I can play any chord progression or melody line or drum fill I want, by just playing it. DJing is manipulating sound that has already been recorded. While it is certainly a valid sonic art form, it's not music.
When I can tell a DJ to play a blues shuffle at 110 bpm in the key of A, I'll consider it a valid musical instrument.
Make me a friend and I'll mod you up
If I could get up on stage, fart to the Star-Spangled Banner, crash plates in a semi-rythmical fashion, and compose a twisted enough crowd to enjoy it, then it's music. It's also art--the two walk hand in hand.
Do you enjoy listening to DJ mixes? If so, it's music, then. That's all there is to it.
If you listen to DJ mixes because you appreciate the skill and mastery of the person performing the act, but otherwise find the actual sound to be a lesson in masochism, then perhaps, to you, it's not music.
Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
If I can keep my DP (Digital Property) forever and even will it to anybody (children..etc) then iPod is better, but if not then I guess why bother license it if it is not forever. Just pay the freak'n monthly fee.
"All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.
Time to die."
Just the best quote ever.
The Internet is full. Go Away!!!
I'm pretty sure that I do not have 10K tied up in my CD collection, most of which were bought used / second hand back when "Disc-Go-Round" was still in business and from Goodwill and Pawn Shops. I have several hundred discs, and a 10 GB iPod that I received for Christmas that has just under 2000 songs (7.5 GB) on it.
Also, given that Apple and Pepsi have sponsored a free iTunes song campaign the last two years during the superbowl, I have over 100 iTunes songs "Purchased" that, if you consider the fact that I would have been buying and drinking the Pepsi anyway, I have at most $5.00 of real cash tied up in.
So I have been able to fill my iPod for well under 10K. Sure, if you buy and pay for each song individually from iTMS and need to buy 2000 songs that equals 2000 dollars, but most iTunes albums feature more than 10 songs and typically sell for $9.99.
So in my opinion, Napster is nothing but marketing hype. However, I'm one of those people that hate monthly charges. Absolutely hate them. I prefer the pay as I go system, that way like last year when I went 7 months without buying anything at all from iTMS, I didn't pay anything and didn't feel any pressure or force to buy anything. So I guess as in all things your mileage may very.
"Genius may shine aloof and alone, like a star, but goodness is social, and it takes two men and God to make a Brother."
The output of DJing is certainly music. The only difference is in the complexity of the input. But if we're going to go there, then we could just as easily argue that someone who didn't write their own songs is not a musician because they were just playing someone else's music. The bottom line is it takes talent to make good music and if someone else makes substantial modifications to a song so that it sounds very good but also very different, they should be considered a musician.
The real question here is would the current music industry survive a complete and total move to a subscription based service. This becomes questionable. They're doing it now because theres money involved. . . Quite a bit of money.
.remember divx). Ah the future is wide open.
However a total transition would mean that no single band is making the money. Possibly leading to one of two extremes. One, the record labels continue only pouring their money into a couple of bands (and their own wallets). To an extreme not seen today. These are the reason people sign up for service. Music becomes completely manufactured etc. Why bother supporting these smaller bands.
Then you have independent labels who if they're not getting money from the subscription services (or aren't involved or getting enough) cut back musicians etc. They fall off the wayside. On top of this we have no easy distinction of who to pay for what unless we base sales purely on downloads. This works great for major labels, unless people don't go for it.
Under a second extreme we have the record labels stop spending money to produce hit making acts. Afterall they are locked into deals with napster, and itunes or whoever to distribute their content forever. 90% of their income is now made off these deals. Theres only 2 music companies (or maybe only one major monopoly by this point). Music turns into a cash cow and its you're either on their train or not, no point in spending money on expensive videos etc because everyone pays the same. The labels won't like this (unless they have more and more premium content). The industry starts to collapse on itself.
The industry doesn't like that and if a subscription service couldn't stand in parallel with their current model they won't allow for it, and people who have spent $15/month for 5 years because they thought it was cheaper all of a sudden own zero music to listen to. Sounds wonderful as well.
Of course their are other extremes in between, or the possibility that bands end up taking control of the industry by refusing to go along with their tactics. By not needing these record labels to distribute their music (thank you internet) and the production can be done much cheaper thanks to rapidly advancing computer technology, they can make it on their own.
The futures likely to be a combination of all of these (with the added thought of a pay-per-listen strategy that I could imagine the industry come up with. .
Phil
My iPod Mini is already full, and I spent about $30 bucks on iTunes. And with all this "great" music coming out of the industry, looks like I'll be spending about an additional $30 this year! All my money goes to Audible, now that's why.
Sorry, napster's rep precedes it, and music just isn't that "in demand" as they want to pretend it is that it's worth a permanent monthly fee.
Not true at all. When you buy from the iTMS, the music goes into iTunes, not to an iPod.
That's exactly true. DRM'd files bought in iTMS will only work with an iPod.
Only when you strip off the DRM, will play on anything.
I can't believe anyone uses ANY of these services. When I saw napster coming out I could only think "what a joke, people using napsters name to make money off something irrelevant to it" and figured it would be quickly and quietly rejected. I figured iTMS would suffer the same fate. Boy was I wrong.
Now there's people on here debating between the two! Here's a word of advice people.
STOP BUYING THIS SHIT.
Why are you supporting this? THIS IS DRM! This is the RIAA-sponsored computer takeover everyone complained about! What is wrong with you people?
P2P isn't dead yet anyway.
I repeat. STOP BUYING THIS SHIT. EVERYONE. For your own good. And while you're at it stop watching MTV. I thought this is news for nerds? If I wanted to news for typical american followers I wouldn't have came here.
If you don't want someone to copy something, don't give it to anyone.
I'm not sure exactly what you're listening habits are like, but I've found listening to streams on itunes is an excellent way to check music out. I happen to particularly like the jazzmusique station under electronica--sometimes bumpin, sometimes groovy atmospheric. The thing is there are thousands of stations out there. if you find a few you like, you can always change the channel if you don't like what you're hearing. As an added benefit, I learn about a ton of great groups that I wouldn't have had exposure to otherwise. Again, maybe you just "want to hear what i want to hear when I want to hear it" but if you're open to variety, you should consider the streams.
harmonious design
What about allofmp3.com's model?
Honestly, I think some kind of hybrid between iTMS and Napster will emerge, where, while you're a member, you can download as much as you want and keep it forever; however, discontinuing your subscription means losing access to the archives and also the latest content. I'm sure you all think I'm crazy.
The problem with the music industry for me is that they don't seem to understand that they're selling content. I listen to music *all* the time, but I definitely don't sit there and play the same damn cd over and over again. I need about 5-10 cds worth of new music content a week to feed my hunger. Now, as far as new content (of any kind... not just music) goes, I'm only willing to spend about $50 a month. Clearly me and the RIAA aren't going to be doing much business when I can make my $50 a month go much farther with other kinds of media (books and blogging and video games). Though, if I had to pick, I guess Napster satisfies my criteria better than iTMS.
Every time you read this, I am going against my principles.
"A Napster commercial on TV offers the following comparison."
That and the wording of the part copied into the summary make this look like nothing more than a sponsored aricle.
Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
Some subscription models might do what you describe. Not this one.
If I choose to not pay the subscription for one month. Fine, I don't have music for a month. But then I can start again next month and get ALL my music back plus ANY song they EVER released.
Hell you only might want to subscribe one month a year and get ANY song they EVER released to play at your Birthday party. Hmm, that sounds like a good idea.
It is a DIFFERENT licence that you are buying, one that has good points and bad points, the good point is that you get ANY and EVERY sony they have EVER release for a whole month for just $15. THERE IS NO LOCK IN.
Is summary, *The same thing that has been said a thousand times* It is good for some people, not for others. YMMV
Something I think that gets overlooked in all of this, is that hte iPod can function as more than just a music player. It can be (and from what i've read around here on /. is) used as portable storage for files photos etc. Wasn't LOTR saved to iPods during filming? Along with owning an iPod, there comes utility as well as function. I have actually gotten up to around 8000-8500 tracks on my ipod. Mostly because I've been collecting music since I was 16, not to mention my friends music, and checking out napster when it was illegit. I'm only 26 now. Maybe I'm uncommon, but I don't tend to delete music just because it's not in style anymore (Hall & Oates anyone?). Interestingly enough, I find that my 40gig iPod isn't nearly big enough. I'm going to eventually get a 60gig (or bigger iPod) sometime this year, because in addition to playing music anywhere I go, I can plug it into any computer and share information. Whether it's for helping a friend fix their computer, sharing the latest linux distro, a tv show, a movie, or whatever I may want/need at any given point. Saying that the iPod isn't worth it because it would take 10,000$ to fill it using iTunes, is incredibly short sighted and extremely misleading. Not to mention the fact that just because you have an iPod or any digital music player for that matter dosen't mean that you have to buy music online anyways or be locked into iTunes (ephpod anyone?). If I didn't have such a large music collection, I'd still want an ipod or some kind of digital music player because it simplifies things. Why carry around 20 cds (200$) in a large case (another 10-30$), and potentially scratch them (or the copies I've made), take a chance on having them stolen (that really sucks, I had 80 cds stolen from my car in chicago one time after comdex), or just in general mess with it. I can slip my music into my pocket and go. About the only thing I can't do, is let someone borrow a CD that I may be listening to, but I can always make a note to burn one for them later.
I'm not an apple fanboy (though I'm getting a new powerbook after having used PC's for the past 10 years now) I have to say there is definately a coolness factor in owning it as well as just the way it feels in your hand.
People are focusing on the $180/year for the rest of your life to keep your music alive. That misses the real risk: that Napster doesn't stay in business. How long will they last? 1 year? 2 years? When they go dark, so do your tunes.
What sort of a trial is that? How many songs are you going to get for 11MB?
Soooo I really don't give a pooooo...............
I'll stick to buying CDs and importing them with iTunes to Apple lossless, my music app and format of choice. Or I could just copy the AIF directly from the CD into my iPod through iTunes.
Monthly subscription do several things, in this setting: they limit the life of your music, they limit your financial flexibility, and they lock you into a particular vendor
You seem to have got that the wrong way around. If I buy music outright from iTunes I receive a m4p file, which locks me into playing it back on an iPod. I'll have a bit pile of music and the next player I buy has to be able to play them (which pretty much limits me to an Apple iPod).
Now as I'm stuck with an iPod to play my old music, then the only real place I can simply buy DRM music without problems is erm..iTunes.
You see the little loop I find myself in here?
With the rental model I buy device x and keep it loaded for $15 a month. If I suddenly want to change device, then I can buy any I fancy that's supported by a subscription mechanism. I can bin my old player, sign up to any subscription service that supports the new device and with my $15 subscription I'm up and away with all the same music I was listening to last month.
Now not only do I get more choice, but the music provider knows I have choice - and competition is good.
that's all possible blah blah
but we don't want to do that. We want to click a button, pay for a tune and get it on our portable player. Apple want you to buy their iPods, so they only support iPods.
It's not a technical problem, it's the way Apple wants it, and the way we get it.
If you're happy with that then I'm happy for you, but please don't feel the need to obfuscate and defend Apple's monopolistic business practices.
if you had ever used itunes, you would know that
1. albums generally cost $9.99, not $1/song
2. most people don't want the entire album. this is the reason you would use itunes over just going to a store and purchasing the album.
The point is that an average person would buy 5 albums worth of content per month; his back of the envelope calculations are reasonable.
"Why is is to friggin' hard to just pay for music? There's a lot of people working hard to deliver an album, and they deserve to make a honest buck off it."
Very true. However, most of the online music stores' downloads are of fairly low quality - and by that I mean low-bitrate rather than any critique of the music itself.
Now, here in the UK it's around £8 to download an iTunes album. I grew up in the seventies and eighties. I own a shedload of albums, many of which are on vinyl and the remainder these days are on CD. For the greater part, downloaded music sounds noticeably inferior to the sound of the same music off of CD or vinyl. However, compared to buying the CD (or LP, if available) there isn't a great deal of saving to be made in purchasing sans media using the 'net. A bit of careful shopping can pull the same CDs in for around £8 or so and I can rip them myself, legally, using iTunes, whilst having the choice of the bitrate to use. I personally rip most things at either 256Kb/s or 320Kb/s stereo AAC, and find that that's the level which begins to sound 'right' to me. Others might well be happy with 128Kb/s, but not me.
My point with all of this is that at least where conventional CD is concerned, I can both have my cake and eat it - quality and convenience - without having to accept someone else's arbitrarily enforced bitrate. This is why I don't pay for downloads. I'd rather have the original, or higher quality downloads at close to the originals' price, or settle for the lower quality download if it was substantially cheaper.
Just my own personal viewpoint, of course...
there's been a lot of discussion on which pricing plan is better. i've actually done something thinking about this.
/. reader = 20years old). average life span = 80 years old. so we have a good 60 years left. 60yrs * 12mo/yr * 15songs/mo = 10800 songs (just a bit more than enough to fill up your ipod). however, with $15/month @ napster, you can fill up your mp3 player after year 1 (5gb/month). instead of by the 60th year. of course, i'm still assuming that by that time we're still using the same mp3 players and same schema for listening to music which i highly doubt, but lets assume that for now.
let's just assume that both pricing plans stay the same till we die. there's no point in saying napster's monthly fee will increase since itunes pricing per song would most likely increase also. so sticking with the same pricing structure, $15/month on Napster gives me unlimited songs and with that $15 @ iTunes, I can purchase 15 songs per month.
napster is a better structure for those who are interested in more than 15 new songs that come out each month. i'm not saying those who purchase 15 songs from iTunes, but merely interested. i personally only purchase songs which i really like. if a song sounds good, but not that good, i'd most likely not purchase it. however, with the napster structure, i can listen to songs that are awesome or just good.
same assumption as someone else (average
i actually really like the napster plan, the more i think about it. i personally do not purchase $15 worth of itunes music/month @ the itunes store, but with the same idea of paying $20 for buffet and $10 for a decent meal, i get a lot more for the $20 buffet, than the $10 meal.
however, as i said, it depends on the user. by owning your songs, i suppose your children will "inherit" them making them legal owners of your music. with napster, your children will have to continue to pay the subscription fee in order to keep that music.
but coming back to reality. with the everchanging technology and the possibility of napster going under again (which would render all your music unusable after a month), it's a very big risk to use napster. if only napster was backed by a giant, i wouldn't be that scare.
HD Trailers
pwn3d!
Kiteboarding Gear Mention slashdot and get 10% off!
Oh I see, you're one of those idiots. I like the way you insterted the key and the BPM, as if it makes any difference whatsoever.
I don't believe you could play a blues shuffle at 110 bpm in the key of A on a drumkit, are you saying that isn't a valid instrument? You wouldn't be able to on a sitar either. Or any one of hundreds of instruments that don't use our twelve tone scale. Or what about the hundreds of instruments that can't play chords, or can't play well-defined scales?
Saying the turntable can't be used as an instrument is an incredibly narrowminded and plain dumb thing to say.
Shitram Brown, PhD
Professor of Mathematics
I can buy a song on iTunes for $1 and keep it for the rest of my life, lets just say thats 80 years.
Since the Napster songs go away as soon as you stop subscribing I need to pay $15 a month for the next 80 years. That folks, is $14,400.
Some more math.
Let's assume an inflation adjusted interest rate of 5%. That means that your first song (initial price $1) will now, during the course of your life, cost you:
1 * 1.05^80 ~= $50.
The same goes for your first months subscription of $15:
15 * 1.05^80 ~= $750.
So, which one do you prefer? To pay $50/song or $750 for a months subscription?
fuck that.
Music is what comes out of the speakers, not what's done to produce what comes out of the speakers. I agree djing isn't the same thing as playing an instrument but saying it's not music seems silly.
"Apple has chosen to keep both iPod and iTunes closed off from Napster and every other music service. Napster's philosophy is different .."
- yeah that of being a hypocrite.
Mac users and Linux users can't use your shite.
I prefer Apple's straight blunt and honest "fuck-everyone else" approach, than your slyness,
creeping lies.
Napster give up, you try too hard
but only end up spewing crap.
Hope you go bankrupt very soon.
Reminds me of a joke...
Q) What do you call a guy who hangs around with musicians?
A) A drummer.
First, the music industry would simply LOVE to have us rent music instead of buying it. Thus, they are going to push this model.
Second, (I hate to sound like an old fogy, but) listeners today just don't have any band loyalty. When I was a kid my brother listened to the Beatles, I listened to the Beatles, and even kids I knew in the 80s listened to the Beatles. Heck, an even better example is Ozzie, he gets millions to buy his CDs and attend his concerts decade after decade. (Pretty impressive for a guy with absolutely not talent other than enough smarts to surround himself with talented musicians.)
There are simply no artists like that today. Today it's all about who is hot now. And once someone is out, they are out. (E.g., boy bands) Thus a model where you can only get the hottest music cheapest will win out.
Third, and this is probably the most important indication, I think Napster's business plan is an asinine idea. And EVERY time I hate an idea, it succeeds. Thus, Napster will succeed.
One thing Apple could do is to start appealing to music purists who want to own music and are willing to pay more. For example, Apple should start selling non-lossy formatted music!
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
...but it's always been that way, hasn't it? If an iPod was around 10 years ago, it still would have cost you about $9000. It's just the price of OWNING music, always has been.
Napster is different. It LOANS the music to you. So comparing them is like comparing *insert obligatory Apple dichotomy here*.
The price difference is still a choice for consumers. Do I want to be able to listen to that music after I stop paying Napster? If yes, then iTunes, if no, the Napster. Done.
"The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance - it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel Boorstin
For me, that's the issue here: the Napster model is more like a premium radio subscription, and is best suited for browsing, sampling, trying this and that. You get access to stuff, but you don't keep it. If Napster closes shop, then the access is gone as well. You are dependant on the provider being accessible.
The iTunes Music Store model is more like a physical music store, where you only need to contact once and then it's yours. If iTMS goes tits-up tomorrow, you still have your music (albiet limited to the original "media" of the authorised computers and the iPod). As long as the media works, you can go back and listen to the music (ever dug out old records from your school days? It can be a trip sometimes).
The other difference is that the Napster model is aiming for customers who want to download music first and filter after the transaction. With the iTMS, you tend to know what you're looking for when you enter. Even though the songs cost only 99 cents, an average human will hesitate before paying. Therefore you tend to be more choosy about which songs you download.
I personally prefer the iTunes model. It gives me more of a sense of control, and it also cuts down on downloads overall (I prefer the "do I need this" moment to happen before, not after downloading. I prefer anything that means less bloat, period. But that's a discussion for a nother time.)
I'm so sick of this argument from iPod critics. My iPod is full of music that I didn't buy from iTunes - I ripped it legally from my CD collection. Not to mention mp3s I've obtrained from various sources over the years.
> Is Napster to Go the future of digital music distribution ?
No it isn't. It's an absolutely crap idea.
The idea that I would buy a licence to listen to a piece of music is completely insane. What happens when Napster goes tits up ? Your expensively acquired music collection is lost forever. When "The Alternative Record Company" go bust my back collection of "The Alternative Record Company" CDs don't suddenly evaporate nor do they become unplayable. I can also rip any CDs I buy to any new formats that are invented so the music pretty much stays with me for life.
Sorry but my view on consuming is very simple. If I buy something it's mine to do with as I please. In other words I can pull it apart to see how it works, I can recombine it to make other things, I can use it in ways it was never intended to be used, I can even smash it to bits, shoot it or put it on a bonfire and burn it. It's none of your bsiness what I do with because I bought it. It's mine now.
Honestly anyone falling for this sort of crud deserves what they get. They deserve to get nothing for their money. They're idiots plain and simple.
Sky subscribers are morons. They pay to be advertised at !
oh, look at me, being defensive again.. :)
-mkb
I definitely like streams, for the reasons you say -- but once you learn about a great group, what do you do? If it's me, ten seconds later I have their first album queued up on Rhapsody ...
As we all know, there are three pieces to this digital music thing and the business model for selling the music is only a subset of one of those parts - the (3) Music Store.
While the (1) Player (iPod vs. the world) and (2) Catalog software aren't directly tied to the (3) Music Store when one thinks of buying $0.99/9.99, things get more complex when the concept of digital on-demand radio (isn't that really what we are talking about here?) comes into play?
If Apple does provide a monthly subscription service, I bet (and hope) it doesn't take the form of an all you can eat buffet, but looks something more like this:
- Using a variant of iTunes Smart Playlists, the (2) Catalog Software (iTunes) allows you to create your own digital commercial free radio station by selecitng Genere, year, etc, which may optionally be tied into Apple's exclusive Billboard Top 100 listings.
- The (1) Player (iPod) manages the above digital radio stations as playlists but along with the ability to rank a song that is playing with a star rating as you can today, you can also flag a song as one you want to add to the permanent collection, which will be added to your shopping cart on the next sync to your desktop/laptop.
- The (3) Music Store (iTMS) will have various pricing plans like cell phone providers - each plan includes a limited number of subscription downloads included in the monthly plan that go away when you stop paying and a limited number of purchased track credits you get each month that "roll over" when not used. Depending on the plan you buy, you pay a per-track/albumn price when you exceed your purchase track credits (just like going over on your minutes).
As the iPod 'Crosses the Chasm' further into the main stream, Apple will have to offer more options because 10's of Millions of consumers won't all want to buy music the same way.
I only came here to do two things; kick some ass, and drink some beer...looks like we're almost out of beer.
Getting your drmed aac files to 'any other music device' is not as easy as you put it.
... that if Napster's business model works, the iTunes Music Store might just do it as well? Personally, I don't mind paying 15$ a month to download as much as I want since I will ALWAYS be buying music. However, I only want to do it with my iPod and I only want to do it with the iTunes Music Store. If Apple does this, I'll be the first on the bandwagon.
...until DVD John has had a crack at their DRM.
Seriously, can any subscription model stand the test of time from a purely technological standpoint? Recent events have shown that Apple's DRM scheme is pretty easy to circumvent, but then they don't have to worry about every user suddenly owning a million songs when that happens.
How would Napster thwart such a dam burst? Once the DRM is compromised, it's only a matter of time before someone comes along with a server which can dish out unprotected songs to the world by request. You wouldn't even have to waste your own disk space!
It surprises me that the labels are always promoting subscription services. I'd have thought this would be their worst nightmare.
As an owner of an iPod and a Creative MuVo, I can tell you that moving in either direction is a problem with regards to DRM. Ultimately, the only tried and true solution for moving DRM files from one device to another is to burn and then rip. The key is to burn from the application/player where you bought the tune. If you bought it from MusicMatch, use their burner. The WM Burner will have problems with a MusicMatch DRM file. Same goes for files purchased from MSN, you have to use Windows Media Player to burn the CD. DRM protected music generally has some type of limit on how many times you can burn it, so keep this in mind. I shop for the best deal among several online music stores. E.g. I just bought an album from MusicMatch at $8.50 that costs $9.99 at iTMS. Just consider your music the same as your software. If you download it, burn a backup copy and put it in a safe place. Then you'll also have it to rip later if you want to play it on a different device. If you don't have time for that, then you can afford to pay for the same music again when your hard drive crashes.
I have about 500 downloaded iTunes Music Store tracks that I have accumulated over the last two years. My 40GB iPod is nearly full. About 80 of those songs I have gotten for free with the Pepsi promotion, with caps of sodas consumed by my wife and I. The others were purchased as albums of usually 12-15 tracks each.
So let's move past the "$10,000 to fill an iPod." NO ONE...NOT ONE SINGLE SOLITARY PERSON would ever do that. (okay, one exception: the dude who won a $10,000 iTunes Music Store Gift Certificate last year for buying the 100,000,000th song...but he's the ONLY one!) Most of us have CDs, many purchased over the last 20 or so years that CD's have been available to the common man. Many more of us have vinyl we have been transferring to digital, and then onto iTunes and our iPods.
And, before I close, one more myth to shatter: iTunes happens to work with DOZENS of MP3 players, not just an iPod. Sure, iTunes MUSIC STORE downloads play only on iPods, but music you add to your own library from other sources (99% of my music) can be added via iTunes to MANY other players by numerous manufacturers. Multiple MP3 players worked on iTunes long before Apple released the iPod, and they still do!
...and then consider the $15000 ipod you bought.
If a painting looks like a photograph, that doesn't make it a photograph. Just because you like looking at a photograph doesn't make it a painting. They're completely different forms of art. I appreciate DJing as a technical skill and as an art, but it's not music.
Make me a friend and I'll mod you up
So you're saying the turntable just uses an unconventional mode? Or maybe you want to classify it as percussion?
For the record, I don't classify unpitched percussion as a full instrument either, and drums are my primary instrument, out of drums, guitar, bass, and vocals. Also for the record, in case my blues comment misled you, I think blues is one of the least valid musical genres today, which should be evident if you ever go to a blues gig. Literally, two hours of the same three-chord progression in a couple different keys.
My view on percussion is that it only serves to provide an underlying rhythm that the rest of the ensemble can play over. A drum set serves as part of the music, and can be played musically, but a drum solo is not inherently musical. I have basically the same opinion about DJing. Saying that the output sounds like music, therefore it is, is completely ignoring the fact that the DJ didn't create anything, he just mixed a bunch of stuff together. It's like saying the sound engineer is a musician because music came out of his sound board. It's certainly something that requires technical skill and a ear toward the requirements of the music, but the musician is the one who creates something new and unique.
Make me a friend and I'll mod you up
Music is what comes out of the speakers, not what's done to produce what comes out of the speakers.
So the sound engineer at a concert is a musician because he's mixing the sound that comes out of the speakers? It's certainly a technical skill and an art that requires a good ear for the needs of the music, but that doesn't make him a musician.
Make me a friend and I'll mod you up
While reading TFA, I had a thought.
If you get subpoenaed just submit to the judge that yes you did download but you own a license for every song you downloaded so you didn't break the law.
Then find out what songs they list in their brief against you and go buy it in legit form, like singles, cd, etc...
That way when you have to prove that you have the license for the copyright you will have it and save yourself about $735 per song (since the minimum is a $750 fine per song copyright violation).
Seems a lot beter than giving the bloodsucking RIAA lawyers your money plus tying up their time in court making it futile to continue on suing people en-mass because of the cost of litigation (if everyone who was subpoenaed did this).
Well, you could always burn the songs to a CD before you die, or whomever gets your stuff after you die could, or they could just keep using your library until they do something that hoses the authorization, or they could transfer your account to their name, etc. There's a lot that can be done.
I've been using napster for more than 6 months now, before they had the to-go service, and it fit my personal needs perfectly. Maybe it's enough for some of you, but my few-hundred p2p'd + ripped tracks just weren't enough. not just that, i found p2p to be incredibly slow. it wasn't good for helping me discover any music, either. I had considered a service called pressplay a while ago, but their model gave a limit on the number of streams (no downloads) per month, although they did include a limited number of included purchase credits per month. But now, I checked their site to find that they were now bought by roxio and renamed napster. They had a new unlimited stream/download subscription model, too. I signed up, and within a few weeks I found myself with around 2000 new tracks and at least 10 new artists i really liked. So personally, I really find 10,000 tracks (or even more) to be something appealling. in fact, i'm almost there (i've got around 8000+ songs from napster). I guess some of you aren't so keen on the idea of exploring music and listening to too much more than just a few hundred songs, so it won't be for you. I don't think Napster will ever expand enough to be the driving force of the online music industry, but it'll always be there, with a some people like me who listen to tons of music.
It doesn't make him a musician but it is music.
Copyright does limit using creativity no-trivially.
;-)
...What leads us to build a legal world where the advice
. shtml . Follow this link to learn WHY this laim is made)
I could give you lots of examples, but Lawrence Lessig (http://lessig.org) does it much better then I can. See his free online book "Free Culture (http://www.free-culture.cc/). It's full of real examples of how current copyright laws constrain creativity. It also sketches the history of copyright and other "IP" laws, and is well written (and reading it is no doubt a better way to spend your time than browsing Slashdot
If (you're reading my post) then {you SHOULD read that book}
Well, if you're not going to read it, at least I will quote here an excerpt from another book by Lessig:
a successful director can give to a young artist is this:
"I would say to an 18-year-old artist, you're totally free
to do whatever you want. But-and then I would give him
a long list of all the things that he couldn't
include in his movie because they would not be cleared,
legally cleared. That he would have to pay for them.
[So freedom? Here's the freedom]: You're totally free
to make a movie in an empty room, with your two friends."
(from http://www.the-future-of-ideas.com/excerpts/index
I did read this a while ago, and I wasn't really persuaded.
In the bit I remember, he seemed to jump between things which are clearly breach of copyright (eg copying MP3s of copyrighted music) and things which by precident are fair use (eg creating catalogues of existing works) trying to argue that the fact that the former are prosecuted (quite rightly IMO, and in any case with no impact on creativity) to the idea that the latter is in danger. So far as I know, no one has been prosecuted for putting a list of I Love Lucy broadcast dates on the Web.
Most of this was thrashed out decades ago for literature and years ago for music when sampling became common, though IIRC there was a recent decision by some insane US court which will need to be squished before all uses of the letter `a' require a licence.
You need to distinguish arguments about copyright from arguments about current US copyright law and precident. Copyright per-se doesn't cause a problem, but laws labeled copyright and decisions using the word can. Indeed it is the innocuous nature of copyright which makes people try and re-use the name for thier plan to own the creative world.
_O_
.|< The named which can be named is not the true named
I'm not sure about the rest of you, but I've been buying CDs for the past 15 years or so. So as you might imagine just adding those to my library takes a good chunk of space on my iPod.
Add into that the few albums I've purchased via iTunes, plus the 3-4 free songs per week on iTunes and the Pepsi/Apple song giveaways. What does it add up to? 1GB left on a 40GB iPod.
My point is that most of us have already spent a lot of money on CDs and digital music.
Now can someone explain to me why I would want to rent music each month? The music I buy is the music I like and want to listen to in the future. When I purchase music, I can listen to it whenever I want. Now if I'm renting music, how do I know some RIAA executive won't decide to back out on a Napster deal and I won't be able to listen to the music I've rented?
The only complaints I have about the iTunes Music Store are partial albums and full album only tracks. How do you not put the full album up and why are you missing random tracks in the middle? And when the group is a one hit wonder, why make that track a full album only purchase? I knwo to sell the album. But how much money are they losing on that deal from people who aren't going to buy the full album but would but the one track?
But seriously am I the only one who thinks maybe we should question the contracts between Napster and the RIAA?
Anyone that buys digital music online is stupid. Plain and simple. You are paying a dollar for compressed quality, do you realize how dumb that is. A whole album is $9.99 to download, a CD is cheaper than that and it has 100x the quality, and you can rip the songs off the CD to fit any format for any MP3 player.
The reality is free MP3 music downloading is the past, the present and the future. We are not paying for compressed music! And it's not stealing, stealing would be to listen to a song and use the lyrics for your own song to make a profit.
In addition to RadioShark, there are several music players that have recording-capable radios built into 'em, one of which is Samsung/Napster's YH-920. There are also dongles available for iPod that afford such capabilities.
to the input on my DVD and CDR recorders grab the audio (7 channels now) just fine. i can't hear the difference. maybe you can. i have also set my system to audio grab internet radio and store it in MP3 format. so, now, between the two methods, i have too many tracks to listen to in one lifetime. i can pass ownership of the burned media to anyone who is interested. digital rights protection is over-rated.
you need to re-read it.
what about the case of the guy who wanted a 4-second clip of the simpsons on the background? what about the guy who lost all his money because he improved a search engine in his university? what about having an archive of our culture, legally?
what's right(tm) about making 1/3 of the population criminal/pirate/terrorrist/communist?
what about the industries contracts? what about clearchannel? what about sampling? what about lost tv content (check the fires at the bbc)? what about scientology?
seriously, it's broken.
Like spammers, marketers are laboring under the delusion that the only reason you haven't bought their crap is because you simply do not know about it. The idea that you may know all about it and not WANT it... well, that's an alien concept to them. They are absolutely convinced that if you don't want it, you must not understand it.
Microsoft cheerleader, blue flag waving, you got a problem with that?
What about it? He can ask permission to copy or he can be creative.
what about having an archive of our culture, legally?
Offer to provide Disney's off site digital and physical backups for them for free. If you prove you can do it reliably and securely, and sign a suitable NDA, you'd save them god knows how many millions of $s, they will bite your arm off in their eagerness to take you up on the offer. Repeat for Sony and everyone else. There is your legal archive. Of course you'd be talking billions to trillions of of dollars for the infrastructure, but that is what would intrinsicly be needed for such an archive and not a copyright issue. The reason there is no such archive is no one wants one enough to pay for it.
The BBC is a perfect example. The reason so much interesting stuff has been lost to fires and just people throwing it into skips is simply that in a pre-digital era it eas even more expensive to maintain an archive. Keeping all those old Dr Who episodes etc. cost real money, and someone had to choose between that and making new programmes.
what about scientology?
What about it? (a) they have never, to my knowledge, used copyright to limit creativity since they are interested in $$ and suckers, not creativity, (b) copyright law actually encourages real, creative, criticism of their `scriptures', which is fair use, rather than merely dumping them in a web page and (c) their abuse of the DMCA is a perfect illustration of what I said before about the abuse of the word `copyright' to cover other things.
_O_
.|< The named which can be named is not the true named
The problem was that the US civil court system is seriously fucked up, so that anyone with deep pockets (which can include large groups putting in small amounts) can use any civil law to beat the crap out of anyone with less money. That the law chosen was copyright in this case is not significant.
Think of the lard arses beating on the fast food industry for letting them kill themselves with extra fries -- the law which allows you to sue someone who sells you a dangerous product is not he problem, it is the system which allows that law to be missapplied.
I'm sure I remember a fuss about someone wanting to use a clip of the simpsons in the background of a song, which is what I thought you referred to.
_O_
.|< The named which can be named is not the true named