Napster Going Back to Free Downloads

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.'"

Comments

From TFA

[HeavensBlade23]

"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.

Awesome

[pHatidic]

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.

You're Not Downloading Anything

[WeAzElMaN]

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.

Re:You're Not Downloading Anything

[RickPartin]

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.

Is that a backfire I hear?

[cyngus]

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.

Re:Is that a backfire I hear?

[Golias]

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.

Or use Pandora

[LetterRip]

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

I'm just shaking my head here.

[Anonymous Coward]

'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."

No downloads. False alarm. Still quite cool

[shumacher]

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.

Yeah! Only 60 years of music! Bogus!

[douglips]

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

I demand at least 70 years of free music.

Re:It works great!

[markdavis]

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.

AllofMp3.com

[Kadin2048]

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

Re:Yeah! Only 60 years of music! Bogus!

[hunterx11]

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.

Only in USA

[FASTo]

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 =\