Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Napster Going Back to Free Downloads

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the download-like-its-1999 dept.

conq writes "BusinessWeek reports on Napster's latest move to allow the download of free music. This time the service will be supported by online ads." From the article: "With Napster's new free service, 'we'll be able to help millions of people get out of the world of 30-second clips and of having to buy individual songs,' Gorog says. 'I don't think there's anything better we could do to turn people onto the pleasures of unlimited, legal access to music.'"

36 of 260 comments (clear)

  1. It works great! by crazyjeremy · · Score: 4, Informative

    Just signed up. It works GREAT! Wonder how long it will last.

    --
    Funnypics
    1. Re:It works great! by markdavis · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Good for you. I tried it under Linux + Firefox 1.5 + Flash and it is broken. How not interesting.

      I Emailed them, but I expect:

      1) No reply or
      2) Some nonsense canned reply that doesn't answer my question or
      3) "Must use MS-Windows" or something like that reply

      When I click on Play for a song, it pops up the Napster Free Player and never loads the song- the controls are there and act like they work (I can slide the volume control, click on play and it depresses/turns blue, etc), but there is no sound, no video, no ads. I suppose it is using flash, but I have no problems with flash on any other sites.

    2. Re:It works great! by shreevatsa · · Score: 4, Funny

      Napster indeed wants to help people "get out of the world of 30-second clips" -- see this video (3.4 M). ;)

  2. It's not unlimited by technoextreme · · Score: 4, Informative
    Just signed up. It works GREAT! Wonder how long it will last.

    You can only listen to one song at most five times. Two million songs times five leads to ten million songs before it's useless. Give me iTunes free downloads any day.
    --
    Ooo man the floppy drive is broken. No wait. The computer is just upside down.
    1. Re:It's not unlimited by crazyjeremy · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yeah that's great and all, but you can listen to most all 2 million songs 5 times. Why not get this AND itunes and get the best of both worlds. Listen to an entire song if you want then buy it from whichever you want!

      --
      Funnypics
    2. Re:It's not unlimited by akepa · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Two million songs times five leads to ten million songs before it's useless. Give me iTunes free downloads any day.

      Assuming an average song length of 3 minutes:
      10 million x 3 minutes = 57 years
      It's going to be a long, long time before it becomes "useless".

    3. Re:It's not unlimited by bhtooefr · · Score: 4, Funny

      Or even once? :D

  3. Dot-com boom busines plan? by hal2814 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Isn't this the sort of business practice that led to the dot com boom in the first place? They're going to give everything away and hope that advertising money eventually catches up. Something tells me this isn't going to work. Maybe they'll ad a feature where they pay you for each advertiser's banner you click on.

    1. Re:Dot-com boom busines plan? by x2A · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Google shows adverts to people for what they're looking for, when they're looking for it. This is showing adverts to people while they're already in the process of looking for something else - downloading it - and then listening to it. It's not the time that interrupting people with adverts is terribly welcome and so effective.

      --
      The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
  4. From TFA by HeavensBlade23 · · Score: 5, Informative

    "On May 1, the Los Angeles-based company announced a new Web-based version of its software, along with a new service that lets users listen to any song among its catalog of 2 million songs absolutely free -- so long as they don't want to listen to any one song more than five times." I don't expect them to have much success finding a larger userbase under those terms.

  5. Awesome by pHatidic · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Will they let me listen to standup comedy? It's rare that I ever would want to listen to the same sketch more than five times anyway.

  6. You're Not Downloading Anything by WeAzElMaN · · Score: 5, Informative

    The new service allows users to listen to any song for free up to five times - and it's streamed over Napster's site; you're not downloading anything. I think it's a great marketing move and it works perfectly, but Napster's not returning to the Glory Days, boys.

    1. Re:You're Not Downloading Anything by RickPartin · · Score: 5, Informative

      Also the bitrate these songs stream at is garbage. This is dialup quality folks. You have to sign up for the paid service to get hifi. This whole story is worthless.

  7. Is that a backfire I hear? by cyngus · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I think this is really great news for me and for Apple. I can see getting a lot of use out of this, but not the way Napster intends. Now I can preview the full song a couple of times, then I can go to iTunes and buy it for my iPod, Sweet! Also, let the hacking begin to record the audio stream from your five free plays.

    1. Re:Is that a backfire I hear? by kitsunewarlock · · Score: 3, Funny

      If by "hacking" you mean "using Windows Sound Recorder and bypassing my microphone jack with my soundcard"...

      --
      Ginga no Rekshiya Mata Each page.
    2. Re:Is that a backfire I hear? by Golias · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Why do so many people have this fetish for giving all the money from music recording sales to the musicians?

      In most cases, the performer did the least work of anybody involved in the making of the record.

      I mean, sure, if you are Leo Kottke, you spent decades slavishly honing your craft, but that's not who I'm talking about. People like that are the exception, not the rule. (Also, Leo Kottke, while making a good living on his guitar, never has and never will make "pop star" money.)

      Metallica and Jessica Simpson are 100% utterly replaceable cogs in a much, much bigger machine. The typical recording engineer works a hell of a lot harder than Lars Ulrich ever did in his life, as does every last member of the road crew, the promoters, the distributers, etc.

      With an army of people involved in making some new band's album go gold, why should the half-drunken fucknut or fake-lesbian E-addicted bimbo pair who stumbled in to the studio to belch out tunes for a few hours become a multi-millionaire when nobody else involved in the project does so? Especially when the studio could pluck any of a dozen bands from the pool of unsigned acts in any city and make an album that's every bit as good?

      Pop acts get "screwed" by their contracts because before they were famous, they signed a shitty contract which was the very best one they could get from anybody... But the only reason they became famous (and began to perceive themselves as worth more money) is because the record labels MADE them famous. They worked their asses off bribing DJ's and scrounging for airplay on iPod and Volkswagon commercials to get people hooked on the music.

      The label took nearly all the risk (the majority of acts cost them money), and did nearly all the work. It's only fair that they also get most of the money, no matter how much the poor unfortunate souls who got paid to sing songs and look pretty might think they are worth.

      --

      Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

    3. Re:Is that a backfire I hear? by Nazo-San · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Whilst I agree that the others in the process do deserve every penny they have worked to earn, I still disagree that they need to line their pockets with silver and even gold every time Britney Spears releases a new even worse album. Or do you really believe it costs them with all their quality equipment and experience so incredibly much to make those things? The equipment is a fixed cost and it actually decreases many of the other costs so that it actually doesn't cost them very much in the long run to produce some new crappy album for a crappy artist that has the public spotlight for a day or two.

      Actually, the concept of supporting the bands themselves is a bit more complex than you think. Right now, what is there to convince Britney Spears that she should spend more time working on music quality than she spends with the scissors on her clothes? She's going to be paid more for the scissors in the end, so who cares about quality? On the other hand, when the creators of the music itself get paid directly, they have a LOT more incentive to actually produce quality (namely the fact that they'll go out of business if they just keep releasing crap.) It's the way capitalism is supposed to actually work in fact. In such a system, the good bands who produce quality music would, in theory, come out on top while people like Britney Spears will be back on the streets (and wishing she'd never seen those scissors when winter comes.) Ok, truth is capitalism mainly because of the government doesn't really work out as well as that, but, it definitely works out better when the market is done correctly versus when all the money and control goes to a few big groups.

      Well, besides the whole capitalism aspect in the long run, in the short run, the sort of bands who actually do the direct to consumer methods today tend to be the sort who actually try to provide people with what they want (sometimes even *shivers* TALKING to their fans) and they actually try to produce quality music because they want to, not because they want to be rich. I'm sure there are exceptions, but, today that's where it stands just because that's the kind of mentality that gravitates towards this system at the moment.

  8. Or use Pandora by LetterRip · · Score: 5, Informative

    Well since I love it so, I'll pimp it bit :)

    Try http://www.pandora.com/ it is absolutely amazing for discovering new music. Not really a replacement for this feature from Napster, but quite complementary.

    LetterRip

  9. I'm just shaking my head here. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    'I don't think there's anything better we could do to turn people onto the pleasures of unlimited, legal access to music.'"

    Where I come from, "unlimited" doesn't mean "five or less."

    Gorog must gotten his definition of "unlimited" from the same dictionary Gates and Ballmer used to define "innovation" and "choice."

  10. No downloads. False alarm. Still quite cool by shumacher · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I've been using it quite a bit today. While you cannot download with the free service, streaming seems to work quite well. I even listened to an album, and the intersitial ads (which had no audio) only came up four times while listening to a 13 track album. Plus, it's great to be able to put a link into a message board or email when talking about a certain track.

    I think it's a good thing. Now, if they can keep it from being annoying even after they have some advertisers, it will be amazing.

  11. Sweet by iamdrscience · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Tech bubbles are awesome.

    I hear a lot of people lamenting the current growth of a new tech bubble. While there are many bad things that come from tech bubbles, I think everybody's forgetting the good stuff that comes as well. In particular I'm thinking of all the stuff that companies start giving away for free or for supercheap, whether its because they think they can cover their costs with ad revenues, because they want to build users or just because they've got VC to burn and no business plan, tech startups just love to give people free shit and I think that's awesome.

  12. Re:How do I download? by Who235 · · Score: 3, Informative

    I'm not advocating piracy here, but if one wished to download the songs, one could play them in Winamp with the free Streamripper plugin and rip the streams as MP3s. But that would be wrong, so don't do it. Ever.

  13. Oh, but... by Davus · · Score: 3, Funny

    Does it run Linux?

    --
    The above is most likely humour. Slashdot foot icon goes here.
  14. OK, you can rip the streams with. . . by Who235 · · Score: 4, Informative

    . . .Replay music. http://www.applian.com/replay-music/index.php But doing so would be wrong, so don't do it. Ever.

  15. Back? by grasshoppa · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You can't go back to something that you never did.

    The company that wears the napster costume isn't the original napters any more than I am.

    --
    Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
  16. They are 32K streams by argone · · Score: 4, Informative

    not worth hijacking and would rather hear a 30 second 128K acc file anyway.

  17. Yeah! Only 60 years of music! Bogus! by douglips · · Score: 5, Funny

    10 million songs * 3 minutes/song = 57 years.

    I demand at least 70 years of free music.

    --
    My amazing wife - Artist, Author, Philosopher - Laurie M
  18. Ditch the Napster brand... by telbij · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Here's an idea: lose the Napster brand

    Six years ago Napster was hot. Everyone who matters (to the music industry) used it. The brand was synonymous with "listen to whatever you want whenever you want". However, the digital music market changes quickly. Napster is now synonymous with "shitty overpriced service". If they can come up with a truly great service they are better off starting from scratch than slapping a Napster label on it. If they succeed it will be despite the brand.

  19. Probably not what I want by jdavidb · · Score: 3, Insightful

    By somehow, I'm betting that it still won't be what Napster was in the glory days: a way to get old niche music that was out of publication and liked by me but not that many other people.

    --
    Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
  20. Just record your sound output for goodness sake! by M0b1u5 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "BOOHOOS! The bad nasty manses don't wants me twos save teh muzak I listen 2 online. OH NOS!"

    Look, it's not exactly rocket surgery:

    Use a simple application to record the sound output of your PC sound card. Click "record" just before playback starts and click "stop" when the song ends.

    Most of these apps let you name the file after you click STOP. You can usually set the quality to your preference - but if it's dished out at 192Kb/s then you'd obviously want to record at no greater than 192Kb/s.

    This would be just the same as recording from the radio - sans the stupid cassette tapes. It takes like an additional 5 seconds to name the song, and specify where to save it.

    Good Lord - stop bitching!

    --
    How many escape pods are there? "NONE,SIR!" You counted them? "TWICE, SIR!"
  21. Re:Pay service by MDGordon · · Score: 3, Informative

    Worse. They use wma files.

  22. Re:Just record your sound output for goodness sake by RLiegh · · Score: 4, Funny

    >Look, it's not exactly rocket surgery:

    Are you saying you don't have to be a brain scientist to figure this out?

  23. AllofMp3.com by Kadin2048 · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Because the RIAA can't figure out how to touch them?

    They're quasi-legal, probably honestly legitimate within Russia (at least insofar as Russia has any copyright law and enforces what it does have), and using it from within the U.S. seems to actually be a Customs violation and not a copyright one. Basically what you're doing is the same thing as going to Russia, buying a Beatles album (since nothing before 1974 or so is apparently under copyright there) and bringing it back into the U.S. So the government would have to catch you; the RIAA can't sue you directly, which is their M.O. for intimidation right now.

    This is according to the learned scholars at Wikipedia, so by all means draw your own conclusions, but I think the point is that allofmp3.com is, for the moment, basically untouchable. I have no doubt that one of the many things the RIAA will work into its next law that it gets passed (with the help of their pet Congress-weasels) is to make it a capital offense to download content from another country with weaker copyright laws of the U.S., if that content would be illegal in the U.S.
    In the United States, many supporters of AllOfMP3 have pointed to limited exceptions in US copyright law, most notably 17 U.S.C. 602(a)(2), which provides a personal use exception to the rule that importation of copyrighted items constitutes infringement. A corresponding exception does not exist in 602(b), however, which governs whether importation is prohibited. Under 603, where importation is prohibited, the federal government may seize or forfeit prohibited items "in the same manner as property imported in violation of the customs revenue laws." Thus, it appears possible that "importing" digital files from AllOfMP3.com does not constitute copyright infringement but does constitute a violation of customs law. There is no private right of action for violations of customs law, as there is for copyright law.

    Whether downloading can be construed as importation is open to question. Importation is defined as a form of distribution of copies and phonorecords (17 U.S.C. 602(a)), which are defined as tangible objects (17 U.S.C. 101), which of course can no more be downloaded than a brick can be. So far, US Courts have not ruled definitively on the issue of whether unpaid downloading can constitute infringement on the part of the downloader. Moreover, there have been no rulings in U.S. courts to date regarding the specific legality of purchasing music from AllofMP3.com.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allofmp3#Legality_in_ the_US
    --
    "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
  24. Re:Yeah! Only 60 years of music! Bogus! by hunterx11 · · Score: 5, Funny
    I demand at least 70 years of free music.

    That's okay, but the RIAA demands that you wait at least 70 years for free music.

    --
    English is easier said than done.
  25. Only in USA by FASTo · · Score: 5, Informative

    I'm from Brazil and when I try to listen a music it shows:

    "We're sorry..
    Napster's free music service is currently only available in the United States.
    You can still listen to 30-second clips."

    They could be warned me before I signed up =\

    1. Re:Only in USA by glesga_kiss · · Score: 3, Funny
      "is currently only available in the United States."

      They could be warned me before I signed up

      What, before you gave them your email address? Are you mad?