Napster Digital Rights Management (DRM) [Archive]

dongmin

Nov 8, 2003, 01:57 PM

Originally posted by Dippo
At first glance, being able to download loads of songs for $10 a month sounds like a really good deal.

(Unless I am understanding incorrectly) You can't transfer them to a MP3 player or burn them to a CD (without paying). You will be confined to playing this music on your computer.

So IMHO, the premium service is just like an internet radio in which you can choose the songs you want to listen to. And for $10 a month, this isn't a good deal. (my opinion)

sure if you burn your music a lot and have an mp3 player, the premium service is useless. BUT for people like me who don't yet have an iPod (although I may get one in the near future) and play music off my iBook 99.9% of the time, the $10 a month is a pretty good deal. Plus, you get to download to three different computers which is pretty sweet; it essentially comes out to $3.33 per computer for unlimited renting of music. If this service was offered for iTunes, I'd jump on it in a heartbeat.

edit: iTMS has a clear advantage over others because its player is so much better. And the ability to share your music over a local network is huge, especially in campus/office settings.

nacl99

Nov 8, 2003, 02:03 PM

The subscription service will be great, I'll tell you why!

Because in the windows world you can always guarantee that someone will crack any protection you can come up with, or find a way around it.

So basically Napster will end up like its predecessor, one way or another.

Good for Pirates, Bad for Napster, Good for Apple.

Dippo

Nov 8, 2003, 02:03 PM

Originally posted by Macrumors

- Unlimited burns of individual tracks

According to napster.com

You may burn each Purchased Track to a CD up to five times as part of any particular playlist of songs. A "playlist" is a discrete group of Purchased Tracks that are arranged together in a particular order.

scem0

Nov 8, 2003, 02:03 PM

Originally posted by arn
Here's my take.

Napster's rights are "iTunes Rights" plus offer additional rights (subscription). Therefore is "better"... as in more flexible.

I don't care if you think the Subscription plan sucks or not. It's optional.

There are other reasons to not like Napster's service, but their DRM is not one of them.

arn

exactly how I feel...

But I dont see how anyone could think the subscription service sucks - it is a great deal. I never burn my music, I never transport it, and I have a quickly changing group of music I like to listen to. This subscription thing is PERFECT for me, but unfortunately I can't even let go of $9.00 a month. I have plenty of music on my computer from my CDs.

But really, mac users can't argue about this: Napster's DRM is better than apples.

Hopefully this will change, but as of now, Napster has everything apple has and more. And in my case, much more.

scem0

I bet if the subsription service was offered in iTunes, most mac users would get it...

LethalWolfe

Nov 8, 2003, 02:16 PM

Originally posted by scem0
exactly how I feel...

But I dont see how anyone could think the subscription service sucks - it is a great deal. I never burn my music, I never transport it, and I have a quickly changing group of music I like to listen to. This subscription thing is PERFECT for me, but unfortunately I can't even let go of $9.00 a month. I have plenty of music on my computer from my CDs.

But really, mac users can't argue about this: Napster's DRM is better than apples.

Hopefully this will change, but as of now, Napster has everything apple has and more. And in my case, much more.

scem0

I bet if the subsription service was offered in iTunes, most mac users would get it...

Has in Napsters DRM better? The look pretty much the same to me (save that iTMS lets you burn 10x vs. Napster's 5). Napster has a more flexible service in that you have pay-per-download and subscription options, and if you switch comptuers you can synch yer new computer up w/your Napster music. Neither of those features fall under DRM though, IMO.

Lethal

EDIT: The subscription service doesn't hold any value for me because I listen to my music everywhere (computer in the den, home stereo, car, work, etc.,) so I want stuff I can take w/me.

Sayhey

Nov 8, 2003, 02:24 PM

Originally posted by Dippo
According to napster.com

You may burn each Purchased Track to a CD up to five times as part of any particular playlist of songs. A "playlist" is a discrete group of Purchased Tracks that are arranged together in a particular order.

If I remember Fairplay rules correctly it is up to ten times as part of a playlist. So Apple has a less restrictive DRM than Napster in this regard. It isn't in contradiction to what arn posted. On both systems you can burn a song as many times as you like, but you have to change your playlist every so often.

ITR 81

Nov 8, 2003, 02:26 PM

After talking with some old hacker buddies of mine. I was told some folks are already working at hack the sub. service. Basically pay for it once a month and dl and burn all you want with no extra charges.

I myself don't want to DL music just to my computer. I want to burn it or put it on the iPod and either way I want to be able to play it on my CD player in my car.
So to me paying sub charge plus 99 cents extra for songs I really want to use is just too much for me. If hack program comes out I will use it just get all music I can DL for 10 bucks. But I bet Roxio will pull the plug on this as soon as folks start doing this or the RIAA will.

ColoJohnBoy

Nov 8, 2003, 02:30 PM

Oh oh oh, okay. Yes, I misinterpreted it. I'm still pretty content with just having the 30 second preview and not having to pay extra to decide what I like. But whatever works for people, it's cool.

dho

Nov 8, 2003, 02:40 PM

The most usefull part for me would be the "Sync/Restore" feature.

I lack an ipod and switch between two relatively isolated computers every week. Currently, whenever I buy new music I have to wait for my the slow 128 upload from my dsl to allow my other desktop to use it.

ITR 81

Nov 8, 2003, 02:45 PM

Thing is folks are saying this and that. Well if I'm not mistaken isn't iTunes 5 coming out in Jan.? If so then most these issues could all be resolved in the next version. I wonder if anyone has an update on iTunes 5 and what extras will it will include.

arn

Nov 8, 2003, 02:45 PM

Originally posted by ColoJohnBoy
Oh oh oh, okay. Yes, I misinterpreted it. I'm still pretty content with just having the 30 second preview and not having to pay extra to decide what I like. But whatever works for people, it's cool.

Napster offers free 30second previews too.

Look, I'm not "pro-Napster" by any means... but the uninformed reasons that people come up with to say Napster is worse is just that - uninformed.

Originally posted by Dippo
You may burn each Purchased Track to a CD up to five times as part of any particular playlist of songs.

And you can only burn Apple's songs up to 10 times per playlist. You can create a new "playlist" by rearranging tracks, or simply recreating the list.

Individual songs can be burned an unlimited number of times (on both systems).

arn

MhzDoesMatter

Nov 8, 2003, 03:04 PM

Originally posted by arn
And you can only burn Apple's songs up to 10 times per playlist. You can create a new "playlist" by rearranging tracks, or simply recreating the list.

Individual songs can be burned an unlimited number of times (on both systems).

arn

Wouldn't that mean that Apple's DRM is "looser" than Napster's? The other points about Napster's service mentioned in the article and subsequent posts have nothing to do with DRM. Since this is the only point of contention so far, iTunes would appear to be coming out on top.

-Truth Hertz

Fireball1244

Nov 8, 2003, 03:04 PM

I think Napster's service, aside from the software, is a fairly solid competitor to Apple's. If I were on Windows, and didn't have an iPod, I would probably check it out.

Remember, before iTunes 4.1 came out, people were talking about a "loaner music" feature in iTunes? Where you could download music to your account (probably limited to a certain number of tracks) for a certain number of days, play it on your computer, but not sync it to portables or burn it to CDs? I could see such a feature, still avoiding the hassles of a subscription, being a good riposte to Napster's $9.99 tethered downloads.

billyboy

Nov 8, 2003, 03:08 PM

Im listening to a particular genre of music on streamed radio on iTunes. In the display is the name of the track and the artist. The only reason I can see for paying money to find good music by chance is presumably the ease of clicking and buying that surprise gem from the 1000´s of random tunes you can access every month from Napster´s store.

Perhaps a search feature linking the streaming radio display in iTunes to iTMS is something Apple could introduce. That would be another source of compulsive purchase revenue and at a stroke completely nullify Napster´s subscription idea.

Meanwhile I´ll just type Foghat - Slow ride into my wanted music list in TextEdit, keep listening to the radio and wait for iTMS to come to Britain.

BaghdadBob

Nov 8, 2003, 03:11 PM

Originally posted by Datazoid
Hmmm....Doesn't this go against the entire Apple/Macintosh mantra? I thought the whole idea was quality over quantity? We purchase our computers with relatively little (in some cases, no) flexibility regarding who we purchase them from, the options they come with, the operating system installed, etc. Furthermore, are not the majority of Apple's programs "inflexible"? Practically the whole OS/iLife/etc apps revolve around the philosophy of "adapting yourself to Apple's workflow because it is more efficient/easier/etc", not "Apple adopting itself to your workflow because you know yourself best". If we want more flexibility/options, wouldn't we all have PC's already? After all, they have far more choices and "flexibility" in their hardware and software....

Just a thought, anyways...
Riiiiiiiiight.....Either you've never used a Mac or you've never used a PC, I'm not sure which, but to say that, by comparison, Windows is less authoritarian is pointing to a lack of experience somewhere.

What does this apparently pointless rant have to do with the subject at hand, anyway?

JohnHummel

Nov 8, 2003, 03:19 PM

Originally posted by brhmac
Apple needs to adopt this feature...

Users should be allowed to re-download files they've purchased on to their computer. Files corrupt, get thrown away accidentally, etc.

If Apple is going to maintain it's marketshare in the "legal download music" biz, it needs to take a best practices approach. Learn from the competition, adopt the new functionality when it makes sense and laugh all the way to the bank.

C'mon, Apple, don't let iTunes/iPod go the way of the Newton.

I completly agree.

With LIT (the band) at http://www.litlounge.com/default2.htm, if you purchase your songs, they give you a code so you can download them up to 3 more times.

That's probably a good balance between fairness and convienience[sic]. It's often enough that I can get my music if something goes wrong, but doesn't put Lit in the poorhouse if I forget all my music at once or some such.

greenstork

Nov 8, 2003, 03:24 PM

Originally posted by Datazoid
Practically the whole OS/iLife/etc apps revolve around the philosophy of "adapting yourself to Apple's workflow because it is more efficient/easier/etc", not "Apple adopting itself to your workflow because you know yourself best".

I would venture to say that the two options regarding workflow aren't mutually exclusive. Apple has a great system in place that is highly adaptable, further adding to its appeal.

Back on topic, the Napster service seems like a viable competitor. I laughed yesterday when I heard it was coming to a Mac but for folks who can't afford an iPod, it offers options comparable to iTunes (in terms of DRM, not usability). In addition, it offers this extra premium service. While I would never use it, it is nice to have options. Apple could take a few cues from Napster if this optional subscription model sits well with the RIAA over the long-term. Like arn said, flexibility never hurt.

johnnowak

Nov 8, 2003, 03:26 PM

Kudos to Napster. Strong name and a good product. If Napster has better selection than the ITMS, it will provide decent competition. They don't complete as much as you might think though. If you want the best mp3 player, you still have to get an iPod, and if you get an iPod, you still pretty much have to use the ITMS (or at least its much niftier). If you don't have an iPod, you can't use the ITMS anyway, so it doesn't matter.

My point is, both should be able to coexist fine.

gwuMACaddict

Nov 8, 2003, 03:39 PM

hmm... this doesn't sound as bad i thought it would. although the fact that you can't import your own cd's is ridiculous. any idea as to why they wouldn't want to include that feature? also- are the same labels and artists represented by iTMS and napster? just curious...

ITR 81

Nov 8, 2003, 03:43 PM

How many songs are in the iTunes Music Store now? I know it's over 400,000 and Napster was suppose to come in last week with 500,000. But to me it seems like Apple should be able to close that gap fast probably in another week or two maybe.

linuxpng

Nov 8, 2003, 03:45 PM

This is taken from napsters terms of service...

You may burn each Purchased Track to a CD up to five times as part of any particular playlist of songs. A "playlist" is a discrete group of Purchased Tracks that are arranged together in a particular order. Once you have burned a Purchased Track to a CD, you agree not to copy, distribute, or transfer the track from that CD to any other media or device.

from here http://www.napster.com/terms.html

zim

Nov 8, 2003, 03:47 PM

just curious, are the songs actually downloaded? is this service possible, the subscription service, away from the net, so say if my isp went down, are the songs still there? or would I need to actually buy them.....?

My money is already wrapped up in iTMS so nothing will get me to switch now, no wmp files will ever touch my mac :)

JohnGillilan

Nov 8, 2003, 03:55 PM

In my opinion, the subscription service business model will never fully catch on. Before, the iTMS was unveiled, there were a number of subscription based download services that tanked because the average consumer does not want to rent their music, they want to own it. The iTMS was so successful/revolutionary because they were able to overcome this.

DeusOmnis

Nov 8, 2003, 03:56 PM

Napster only got their DMR because those were the ones given to apple that apple had to fight for. Now that napster was able to get this subscription lender program, apple should be able to impliment it easily.

iTunes 5 comes out and we'll have the same service, for sure.

itsbetteronamac

Nov 8, 2003, 03:56 PM

The whole point of legal music downloads, is so that you can download and own digital music. No one want to rent there music. Music is not like a movie you watch once in a while, you listen to music all the time. I feel that napster is just making the iTMS look better. Once people realize that napster sucks, more people will want to use the iTMS!

kenaustus

Nov 8, 2003, 03:57 PM

If you are paying $9.95 a month to download 1,000's of songs how does the money get split?

Anyone who is, or who knows someone in a band will rapidly figure out that the performers are going to get screwed - nothing new from Napster! The fact is that most bands and singers don't make a hell of a lot of money and Apple's approach is the most honest in terms of their rights and needs. Screw the bands (and record companies) long enough and you're back to the old Napster days.

As for re-downloading songs, what about backing up your purchases? If you spend $10 for an album you are probably going to burn a copy for the car and, if you're wise, send another 40 cents to burn a backup copy in case your computer dies or is stolen. Re-downloading is nice until you start to think about the infrastructure costs and how it may impact YOUR future costs.

iTunes is sweet. It was possible because of Steve Jobs relationships in the music industry and it has opened up a rather good opportunity for customers and musicians & singers. Let's wait a while to see how the industry likes the Napster rental program, and how Napster likes their profitability (especially after WalMart joins the party) before making final judgments.

deepkid

Nov 8, 2003, 03:59 PM

I expected to see more AAC v. WMV mentioned in the thread at this point.

I think a lot of mac people would prefer to use AAC over WMV and that will perhaps keep them from sinking into Napster, much to Steve Jobs' delight.

Personally, I have no interest in accumulating WMV versions of songs, especially those that are not ripped from my own source material.

I think that AAC along with Apple's more flexible DRM, and iTunes are critical in this discussion.

I have no desire to fiddle around with a potentially clumsy interface after becoming greatly accustomed to iTunes and the music store.

Consider that.

arn

Nov 8, 2003, 04:00 PM

Originally posted by billyboy
The only reason I can see for paying money to find good music by chance is presumably the ease of clicking and buying that surprise gem from the 1000´s of random tunes you can access every month from Napster´s store.

But it's not by chance. You decide which songs you download. Imagine if you could go to the iTunes Music Store and download full versions of any song you had even the slightest interest in.

That is what we are talking about. Not "whatever is streamed to me from a radio station"

arn

arn

Nov 8, 2003, 04:03 PM

Originally posted by itsbetteronamac
The whole point of legal music downloads, is so that you can download and own digital music. No one want to rent there music. Music is not like a movie you watch once in a while, you listen to music all the time. I feel that napster is just making the iTMS look better. Once people realize that napster sucks, more people will want to use the iTMS!

Explain why you think Napster sucks. Based on what you've written, I'd wager that you don't understand how Napter's service works.

arn

jettredmont

Nov 8, 2003, 04:05 PM

Originally posted by sickracer2015
dont forget the napster client does not allow you to import your cd's either.. and of course iTunes does...

That is, primarily, because Napster is a store only, not a music-management software as iTunes and MusicMatch are.

You *can* play music using Napster's software, but even Roxio recommends you use something else to manage it.

blenz

Nov 8, 2003, 04:14 PM

Originally posted by brhmac
Apple needs to adopt this feature...

Users should be allowed to re-download files they've purchased on to their computer. Files corrupt, get thrown away accidentally, etc.

do you go back to a music store and say :
"The CD I purchased a week ago, fell into the river while hiking, can I get a replacement?"

:D

dguisinger

Nov 8, 2003, 04:24 PM

Originally posted by blenz
do you go back to a music store and say :
"The CD I purchased a week ago, fell into the river while hiking, can I get a replacement?"

:D

That is totally different. In one situation you are asking for a replacement of a physical object that they store stocks, it costs them money to replace it. The other is asking for a copy which is free for apple to generate. The accounting to show the record companies its already owned shouldnt be too complicated either.
Unless you download daily the same songs over and over, bandwidth usage shouldnt be an issue for apple.

scem0

Nov 8, 2003, 04:38 PM

Originally posted by deepkid

I think that AAC along with Apple's more flexible DRM, and iTunes are critical in this discussion.

Apple has a more flexible DRM?

Can you please explain why you think this?

To me, this is very simple. Apple and Napster offer basically the same thing (which I will represent with x), but napster offers one more potentially big thing (which I will represent with y).

Apple has x. Napster has x+y.

So according to mathematics (assuming y and x are positive numbers), napster has more. Unless y is 0, which in some people's cases this might be true. According to mathematics x <= x+y. There are no questions about that... x has to be less than or equal to x+y. So even if you don't use Napster's premium service, Apple's service and Napster's services are next to identical.

Personally, i think Napsters service is a lot better. To me the subsription download service is invaluable. For the price of 10 songs I can have unlimited songs.

Bah, if apple offered this service before Napster did, then everyone here would be praising it. That is what makes me mad. Many people here are saying it isn't useful, or that Apples service is better just because Apple made it.

If I had to use either service, I would definitely go for the Napster service. It offers anything apple has to offer and more. AAC vs WMP is a very close battle. Despite popular opinion among mac-heads, WMP is a very good format. I could really care less though. Both formats are good enough. Any differences will be so miniscule that they wont matter.

Don't get me wrong. I love iTMS and I love iTunes. But, as of now, if I had to choose a service I would use Napster to buy songs, and I would use iTunes to play them. For me, and I think a lot of other people, that is clearly the better service.

I won't bother trying to convince some people on this, because some Mac users are just too damned stubborn to admit that Apple can be bested. I'm not saying this is true for everyone. For some people the iTMS is better than Napster, but I think that there are very few people like that.

Sigh :o. Time for people to say how utterly wrong I am. :rolleyes:

scem0

ryaxnb

Nov 8, 2003, 04:40 PM

Premium service stinks, standard ok And iWould plan on only using Napster to buy music and making WMP my music manager

jettredmont

Nov 8, 2003, 04:40 PM

Originally posted by Macrumors
It's clear based on recent comments that many users are ignorant of Napster's Digital Rights Management implementation of their recently launched service. With Napster's service rumored to be coming to the Mac, here's a recap of their digital rights management system:

Purchased Music ($.99/song, $9.95/album):

- Unlimited burns of individual tracks
- Unlimited transfers to supported Portable Players (http://windowsmedia.com/9series/Personalization/Devices_PMDs.asp)
- Copy your music to 3 computers
- If you sign into another computer under your useraccount, you can use the "Sync/Restore" feature to download tracks you've already purchased onto the other computer.

Arn: Can you clarify something?

Are all three computers "equal" or is one the "primary" computer and all others "secondary"? In other words, is this like BuyMusic where you can only burn and export to your player on the computer you used to purchase the songs, while the other two can only play back those songs through the computer speakers?

Second, you can use three computers, but are you able to "deauthorize" one of those computers when you buy a new computer? Or, are you buying music only for the lifespan of your current PCs?

Premium Service ($9.95/month)

- Download an unlimited number of songs to three computers.
- Listen an unlimited number of times as long as your subscription is active.

Premium service is optional.

I agree that this is nice to have as an option, although I wouldn't use it. Personally, I like the "radio and friends" music discovery methods (hear a song on the radio I like, see if someone has it, and if no one has it and a bunch of us like it then one buys and the rest preview his copy until they decide to buy), mostly probably because that's what I'm comfortable with, and probably fairly significantly because it doesn't cost $10/month.

There are enough internet radio stations out there that, given a nice fat incoming pipe, you're pretty sure to find one of them that serves up good music that you like but haven't heard at a fairly good clip.

That having been said, if I could get full-length samples to listen to for a while for significantly less than $10/month, maybe more along the lines of $20/year, I'd go for it. I don't see anyone thinking about offering such a service, though. The main problem being that there are a significant enough percentage of RIAA income that is based off songs that are listenable once or twice then need to be thrown out, and that entire audience could have their music demand fully satisfied by such a scheme ...

$10/month, though ... that's often more than what I invest in my *purchased* music collection over the course of a month! I definitely can't justify spending that much just to find the one or two CDs' worth of music I buy every couple of months!

Still, yes, it's good to have that option out there. Since it's not portable anyways, there's no iPod problem to worry about, so if any Mac user really wants to spend $10/month on this there's no reason not to. Other than that you have to install WMP, of course.

ryaxnb

Nov 8, 2003, 04:45 PM

Originally posted by ITR 81
After talking with some old hacker buddies of mine. I was told some folks are already working at hack the sub. service. Basically pay for it once a month and dl and burn all you want with no extra charges.

I myself don't want to DL music just to my computer. I want to burn it or put it on the iPod and either way I want to be able to play it on my CD player in my car.
So to me paying sub charge plus 99 cents extra for songs I really want to use is just too much for me. If hack program comes out I will use it just get all music I can DL for 10 bucks. But I bet Roxio will pull the plug on this as soon as folks start doing this or the RIAA will.
You can use an audio-hijack like program now.

ryaxnb

Nov 8, 2003, 04:50 PM

Originally posted by johnnowak
Kudos to Napster. Strong name and a good product. If Napster has better selection than the ITMS, it will provide decent competition. They don't complete as much as you might think though. If you want the best mp3 player, you still have to get an iPod, and if you get an iPod, you still pretty much have to use the ITMS (or at least its much niftier). If you don't have an iPod, you can't use the ITMS anyway, so it doesn't matter.

My point is, both should be able to coexist fine. Why can;'t you sue the itms? iUse it. I just have a mac. Sorry about bad spelling.

Ja Di ksw

Nov 8, 2003, 04:52 PM

Originally posted by brhmac
Users should be allowed to re-download files they've purchased on to their computer. Files corrupt, get thrown away accidentally, etc.

if I'm reading this correctly, I disagree. It seems to me you are saying that this is what should be, its the "right" thing. "I bought it, I should be able to get it again if something happens to it" type of thinking. While that would be nice, its unrealistic to expect that it "should" be done, or they owe it to you, or anything like that. If I buy a cd and scratch it, or it gets "thrown away accidentally" I don't get to go to the store and get a brand new one for free. To take it to the extreme, if I buy a car from Saturn and accidentally wreck it, I don't get a new free one from Saturn. Anyway, just my .02

If you meant it should be there because it would attract more people, and nothing about what Apple is obligated to do, then I agree with you. This would attract more people.

AmigoMac

Nov 8, 2003, 04:52 PM

Originally posted by itsbetteronamac
The whole point of legal music downloads, is so that you can download and own digital music. No one want to rent there music. Music is not like a movie you watch once in a while, you listen to music all the time. I feel that napster is just making the iTMS look better. Once people realize that napster sucks, more people will want to use the iTMS!

Just for a while, I was thinking that Steve came, registered and wrote that reply.... :p Maybe Phil ?:cool:

ryaxnb

Nov 8, 2003, 04:52 PM

jettredmont

Nov 8, 2003, 05:00 PM

Originally posted by scem0
Apple has a more flexible DRM?

Can you please explain why you think this?

To me, this is very simple. Apple and Napster offer basically the same thing (which I will represent with x), but napster offers one more potentially big thing (which I will represent with y).

Apple has x. Napster has x+y.

So according to mathematics (assuming y and x are positive numbers), napster has more. Unless y is 0, which in some people's cases this might be true. According to mathematics x <= x+y. There are no questions about that... x has to be less than or equal to x+y. So even if you don't use Napster's premium service, Apple's service and Napster's services are next to identical.

Technically, Napster's DRM is *slightly* more restrictive than Apple's (5 burns of a playlist instead of 10; unclear on deauthorization of computers, which has been a sticking point in previous WMA-based services).

Also, if Napster ends up not doing "x" well because it is looking to funnel people into the (significantly better for Roxio) "y" route, then "y" has a negative functionality, detracting from the overall value of the service instead of adding to it.

Personally, i think Napsters service is a lot better. To me the subsription download service is invaluable. For the price of 10 songs I can have unlimited songs.

Correction: For the price of 10 songs every month for the rest of your life. That's $120/year, significantly more than I personally spend on music per year, although you may spend more.

The thing is, though: you buy the CD (or a burnable copy of the song), and you have that for life, no matter what happens. You subscribe to Napster, and you get a whole lot of music, yes, but the minute you or Napster decides to stop the subscription (especially if Napster goes under), that music is gone.

If Napster lasts five years, and you and I each spend $10/month on music, at the end of those five years you have nothing but memories of the music you used to listen to, while I still have legal and working copies of that music. We've each spent $600; I have something to show for it.

In other words, I have a significantly higher faith in the ability to listen to music on a CD or DVD player of some sort ten years from now than in the ability for Napster to remain a going concern for that long.

Bah, if apple offered this service before Napster did, then everyone here would be praising it.

Really?

Well, if it was significantly cheaper as a subscription, I'd go for it. If it was backed by a company with a better future, I'd go for it.

As I've said, if Napster's subscription service has value to you, then more power to ya. Enjoy. The availability of this subscription service, however, gives absolutely no extra value to the primary pay-per-download service.

AAC vs WMP is a very close battle. Despite popular opinion among mac-heads, WMP is a very good format. I could really care less though. Both formats are good enough. Any differences will be so miniscule that they wont matter.

Actually, the biggest difference between WMA and AAC is that WMA contains an auto-executing script language, which has in the past and will forever continue to be a great virus propagation tool!

Don't get me wrong. I love iTMS and I love iTunes. But, as of now, if I had to choose a service I would use Napster to buy songs, and I would use iTunes to play them.

Except, of course, that that is impossible. iTunes doesn't do WMA, and Napster/WMP don't do AAC.

Choosing Napster as a download service does imply that you will not use iTunes on your PC or Mac to listen to your music. Now, WMP isn't all that bad on the PC at least (it's come a LONG ways since WMP7), but I certainly wouldn't choose it given the choice all else being equal.

JohnGillilan

Nov 8, 2003, 05:01 PM

manu chao

Nov 8, 2003, 05:02 PM

Originally posted by dguisinger
That is totally different. In one situation you are asking for a replacement of a physical object that they store stocks, it costs them money to replace it. The other is asking for a copy which is free for apple to generate. The accounting to show the record companies its already owned shouldnt be too complicated either.
Unless you download daily the same songs over and over, bandwidth usage shouldnt be an issue for apple.

Apple is getting around 30c (I keep forgetting the precise number) out of every song they sell. They still don't make a profit out of it. There are marketing costs, costs for devolopping iTunes, for ripping the songs etc. but these costs are usually spread out over a longer horizon, meaning that probably the actual downloading process does cost a non-negligible part of these 30c.

Over the course of several years a substantial portion (maybe 30%) of the songs will be redownloaded, maybe several times, especially when people move to new computers, which will cost a lot of money in the long run. In the beginning and as long as your sales are rising, these costs will be quite small but they will grow over time. Expect Napster to limit that feature in the future.

ITR 81

Nov 8, 2003, 05:11 PM

Didn't know there was program already out there to hack napster..damn that was fast.

Well anyways the selection isn't much different from iTunes. Heck from what I est. Apple should have 500,000 tracks +- by the end of this yr going by the way Apple uploads music which is around 10,000+- tracks a week. But that could increase as well as Apple gets more indi labels on board. They still haven't got alot of the indi punk labels yet. Also I'm sure selection will get very large once the Euro Music Store opens. I believe by next yr Apple will end up with better selection of music over anything Napster has.

One service Napster doesn't offer is DLing audio books which is something I don't think anyone does except the company that did the deal with Apple. At the prices they offer them at you know Apple is probably making more money off the books then say for each music track it sells.

Does Napster have even an allowance feature like iTunes? Most kids parents are going this route..this way they don't have to loan out CC everytime their kid wants a new album. So folks saying this is better..well why don't you compare them both spec for spec...because Napster has somethings that iTunes doesn't and iTunes has somethings that Napster doesn't have. Also with the new iTunes 5 rurmored to be coming in Jan. then we can figure iTunes will gain even more options in the new and next release.

manu chao

Nov 8, 2003, 05:13 PM

Originally posted by JohnGillilan
I think the real difference here is tangible vs. intangible goods. Instances such as file corruption, etc. are out of the users hands while scratching a CD is not.

Looking at how often harddrives are failing (compared to CDs getting scratched) one could call them also intangible goods, that is why they at least come with a warranty, which translated into the music download logic would mean a limited time period in which you can redownload your songs perhaps coupled with some proof that you actually lost the files (not easy).

scem0

Nov 8, 2003, 05:16 PM

Originally posted by jettredmont

Except, of course, that that is impossible. iTunes doesn't do WMA, and Napster/WMP don't do AAC.

Choosing Napster as a download service does imply that you will not use iTunes on your PC or Mac to listen to your music. Now, WMP isn't all that bad on the PC at least (it's come a LONG ways since WMP7), but I certainly wouldn't choose it given the choice all else being equal.

Oh of course, stupid me....

I guess I'd be forced to use WMP or Winamp.

Oh well. :(

scem0

Ja Di ksw

Nov 8, 2003, 05:18 PM

Originally posted by JohnGillilan
I think the real difference here is tangible vs. intangible goods. Instances such as file corruption, etc. are out of the users hands while scratching a CD is not.

yes and no. Scratching a cd is definitely something you can take care to avoid, but every now and then it *may* happen. Not very often, but my music doesn't corrupt very often either. I'd say I'm more likely to drop a cd while taking it out of my car stereo, or have something fall unto my cd folder, than I am to have a file corrupted. In any case, you are right, corrpution is usually something you don't control. What about accidentally throwing it away, as was talked about? That is something, cd or AAC, that is the users fault, completely. Perhaps you could send the file to apple if it was corrputed. "Here, look, the thing you sold me broke, on its own. Give me a new one"

Sailfish

Nov 8, 2003, 05:27 PM

Napster is going to piss off the RIAA and the artists with that subscription service.

If I managed to download all 500,000 supposed tracks in say, 4 months, that's a mere $40.

Sure Napster will turn off my access to the tracks when I discontinue the service, but by then a hack or two or another computer audio hijacking should take care of that.

Their buisness model doesn't make any sense what so ever. I think this is Microsoft's attempts to not lose WMA to ACC.

Also the Napster client will not allow you to play music from "other" means unless you subscribe. Including legit store bought cd's.

Then it's a LLC (Limited Liability Corporation) that alone suggests something sinister.

Just reading the terms is scary also, letting them place programs on your computer, taking your play history etc and reporting that to their "partners". Including Microsoft the Napster client creators.

The subscription service is going to get yanked once a hack comes out.

Napster must know about audio hijacking, so when everyone has filled a external hard drive or two with MP3's and safely stashed them. They will promptly cut-off their subscription and erase the tracks from their internal hard drives. Thank you very much.

I can't understand why they would choose this unless they don't plan on releasing all the tracks as subscription or they are of lousy quality/intentional skips inserted. To try to get one to buy.

A slashdot poster said this:

"Did you even live through the dot-com bubble? Do you remember when sites like Yahoo!, Excite!, and the other titans of ad-based revenues (or lack thereof) were huge for a while and had hundreds of other companies trying to do the exact same thing fully well knowing that revenues would be slim to none? And after a few years the only services left were the ones that made a real name for themselves, brokered real, money-making partnerships, or that sold their soul to the devil?"

"That's exactly what I see going on here: We've got iTunes, MusicMatch, Napster, Wal-Mart, MTV, and the others on the horizon that are all going to enter into a market that their accountants probably would advise against but they still do it to try to get a foothold in a new and emerging market. Expect many of them to die off unless they get a viable business model to back up their technical requirements. Apple's got the iPod, Napster has their $9.99 subscription service, and the others have...."

"It'll be interesting to see the Internet music bubble burst in a year or two. In the meantime I'll keep buying music from iTunes."

I think iTunes is a wise choice, unless your a pirate of course, then Napsters subscription service is tempting bait.

jettredmont

Nov 8, 2003, 05:28 PM

Originally posted by JohnGillilan
I think the real difference here is tangible vs. intangible goods. Instances such as file corruption, etc. are out of the users hands while scratching a CD is not.

Also, note that Napster does *NOT* allow you to re-download your tracks if you lose them. Each track you purchase may be downloaded to three different computers, each EXACTLY ONCE. You may not download any track more than three times, or more than once on any one computer.

In fact, the license agreement states this quite explicitly. Napster is NOT responsible for you losing the downloaded file. Period.

Question: Can you transfer a downloaded track from one computer to another? I don't see mention of it in the license agreement.

manu chao

Nov 8, 2003, 05:40 PM

Originally posted by jettredmont
Also, note that Napster does *NOT* allow you to re-download your tracks if you lose them. Each track you purchase may be downloaded to three different computers, each EXACTLY ONCE. You may not download any track more than three times, or more than once on any one computer.

In fact, the license agreement states this quite explicitly. Napster is NOT responsible for you losing the downloaded file. Period.

Question: Can you transfer a downloaded track from one computer to another? I don't see mention of it in the license agreement.

That may explain a lot of things, so maybe they just offer another way to get your songs onto another computer (or it is the only way).

arn

Nov 8, 2003, 05:45 PM

Originally posted by Sailfish

Then it's a LLC (Limited Liability Corporation) that alone suggests something sinister.

Oh, come one... LLC is nothing sinister. This comment alone makes me want to ignore the rest of your post.

arn

DOUBLEADESIGN

Nov 8, 2003, 05:48 PM

you can use Wiretap to capture anything you've subscribed to. pop it into itunes and convert it from AIFF to AAC or whatever you want. which also works with MP3.com. Or you can use Radiolover to capture most streams. I've got a nice 80's collection that way.

greenstork

Nov 8, 2003, 05:50 PM

Originally posted by Sailfish
Then it's a LLC (Limited Liability Corporation) that alone suggests something sinister.

All this means is that you can't sue people in the company for their personal money because their product caused you harm.

Every corporation bears these protections, including Apple. The LLC simply affords them more tax flexibility than a standard corporation.

While you had good points, the fact that you sound like a conspiracy theorist and the fact that you quoted Slashdot doesn't do much for your credibility.

edit: arn you took the words right out of my mouth.

neutrino23

Nov 8, 2003, 05:58 PM

On the surface, it looks like the Napster offering is not bad. As more details come out it seems that iTMS will look better. Details such as Napster putting spyware on your computer. As others have pointed out, Napster does not offer gift certificates, allowances, etc. iTMS is definitely a more robust offereng.

For the long term, I would be most concerned about the viability of Napster. Apple asserts that they are just about breaking even on iTMS and they have the largest volume of anyone. But Apple makes money on iPods and Macs so they are happy with this arrangement.

Napster and the others don't have this income source. Roxio recently posted a hefty loss. Napster will not bring them profits. Will Napster disappear within a year? What happens to your music if Napster is no longer around?

If Sony jumps into this market they could have a model similar to Apple's. Sony could make money off of a player supporting their service and break even on the music service itself.

As an aside, it is curious that the record companies need 66 cents per song. In Japan, Daisoh corporation creates and sells original CDs for 100 yen (about 80 cents). This is not mainstream music (folk songs, karaoke and such). Nevertheless, they have to arrange for performers, record the music, press it to a CD, come up with cover art and ship it to stores and still they make money on it. Interesting.

reyesmac

Nov 8, 2003, 06:02 PM

Napsters rules are pretty dumb, its like they think you can't just find the song for free on the internet. I like Apples method better because I feel like I am actually purchasing the music I want. I download all I want for free on the net, and I buy my favorites at CD quality from Apple.

greenstork

Nov 8, 2003, 06:18 PM

Originally posted by reyesmac
Napsters rules are pretty dumb, its like they think you can't just find the song for free on the internet. I like Apples method better because I feel like I am actually purchasing the music I want. I download all I want for free on the net, and I buy my favorites at CD quality from Apple.

You are aware that you can both preview songs for 30 seconds without a subscription and that you can buy songs for the same amount as at iTunes, right?

Your post indicates to me that you don't understand this.

I'll never use Napster, but many on this thread seem to be trashing it because they are simply ignorant. For the record, I hate WMA files, not being able to import my cd's sucks, and the subscription service is useless to me. Other than that and the 5 vs 10 playlist burn limit, these are identical DRM's. They're offering the same service with extra features than iTunes, wake up people. :rolleyes:

poultryfarm

Nov 8, 2003, 06:19 PM

wtf?!

why is this bad? if you don't like napsters service then don't use it. But why are so many people pissed that they will have one more music store option?

i hope napsters (or any other) service is excellent... and i trust apple will respond with a better version of itunes and the ipod that rivals it's competitiors.

if itunes is the better product i'll use it, simple as that.
competition is good.

wma does scare me though

Dippo

Nov 8, 2003, 06:30 PM

The Premium Service might be good for some, but not for me. I don't listen to music enough to justify $10 a month.

Rincewind42

Nov 8, 2003, 06:57 PM

Originally posted by dguisinger
That is totally different. In one situation you are asking for a replacement of a physical object that they store stocks, it costs them money to replace it. The other is asking for a copy which is free for apple to generate. The accounting to show the record companies its already owned shouldnt be too complicated either.
Unless you download daily the same songs over and over, bandwidth usage shouldnt be an issue for apple.

Just because the object is intangible, doesn't make it free. There are a number of costs that are hidden from you when you download a file from anyone. There are bandwidth costs, storage costs, and administration costs, and that is just for getting the music from the store to you the first time. You are asking for them to retain a database of who purchased what, which can incite additional legal costs should someone sue claiming that they misused the data. Apple currently gets 35¢/download and they don't make a profit from the store at all. To add additional costs to allow for re-downloading of the songs that you decided not to burn to a CD for backup would drive costs to a breaking point.

Macco

Nov 8, 2003, 07:03 PM

Originally posted by MhzDoesMatter
Wouldn't that mean that Apple's DRM is "looser" than Napster's? The other points about Napster's service mentioned in the article and subsequent posts have nothing to do with DRM. Since this is the only point of contention so far, iTunes would appear to be coming out on top.

-Truth Hertz

Yes, I suppose that this would make iTunes' DRM less restrictive, but in a small and almost meaningless way, since this restriction can easily be avoided in both programs.

gwangung

Nov 8, 2003, 07:08 PM

Originally posted by Sailfish

Then it's a LLC (Limited Liability Corporation) that alone suggests something sinister.

Ummm....I REALLLY don't think so. LLCs are quite common; take a look at proxy statements of publically traded companies; a lot of subsidiaries are LLCs.

sweetaction

Nov 8, 2003, 07:12 PM

Jobs mentioned that Apple doesnt make money off the sales in iTunes. We know Jobs had the best ability to leverage the labels to sell their music in this fashion. So if Napster, etc expect to make money, did they get a better deal? Do they get a bigger slice of the $.99 ? I really doubt it. Apple will make their money with iPods and enticing people to use macs cause they are easier. Like iTunes? Try iPhoto... iMovie... iDVD...

Go Apple...

BurntCalc

Nov 8, 2003, 07:20 PM

It's certainly a competitive model. The subscription service will be what makes or breaks Napster (since it's basically profit money at that point). That, and if it can sell enough of its own players.

Apple is sweating for a number of reasons:

1. Name recognition
2. Despite PC inroads, Napster may click better with some PC users.
3. Apple still has to fight a perception war.
4. Microsoft will help to push out any non-WM content.

I have a feeling that this is only the beginning. Things are about to get interesting. Apple is bound to reply with an upgraded iTunes and iPod. Napster is bound to do the same.

The war hath not ended. The war is just beginning.

fatfish

Nov 8, 2003, 07:30 PM

Ok so at first glance the pay per song services seem pretty equal with Napster having the edge. (That's according to the administrators post)

But after not so much thought on the subject it's clear that Apple have the edge. The administrator makes 4 points to demonstate the Napster Service.

The first is not true, Apple have the edge on this one.

Second point I'm not sure on, but I suspect this is exactly what Apple offer-unlimited transfers to your supported portable player.

Third point - exactly what Apple offer, transferable to 3 computers.

Fourth point, sync/restore. Not much use in my opinion, this doesn't mean you can simply download another copy if you loose one, what it means is that if you want to put your music on a 2nd or 3rd computer you can download it rather than copying it, I know which option I would use.

So all things seeming equal if not slightly in Apples favour, how about the things the administrator didn't mention.

I live in the UK, so I don't have access to download music yet, the 3,000 songs in my collection have all been ripped from my CD collection. If I go with Napster, then it will cost me just short of $ 3,000 dollars to get all my music onto my computer into wma files so I can load it on to my portable player alongside any songs I purchase from Napster-All because napsters app can't rip music from CD's.

Now lets look at this premium service option.

The question is will it survive, apparently there are already hacks to bypass this, which makes it as bad as illegal downloades from file sharing services, no worse, because at least with file sharing services the authorities have the ability to monitor it, it seems there would be no way of telling whether music being downloaded on subscription would end up being hacked or not.

In my own case, my 3,000 songs have been collected over 35 yrs, so under the subscription method I would have spent $ 4,200 or $ 1.40 per song. And what happens if the service goes under, which I suspect it will.

It actually doesn't matter whether I have 10,000 songs or 10 songs via subscription, they'll never be mine, and when (if) Napster goes down the pan they're all gone.

For anyone who wants a legal music library, subscription is of no interest whatsoever. It is my opinion that Napster know that this service will be abused and therefore will be popular amongst abusers, I suspect that subscription is where Napster will make money if anywhere.

I agree that Napster sucks, not because of the usual PC vs Mac thing, not because it's inferior, as apart from the slight edge apple has with DRM and a slightly bigger edge with UI, the services are roughly equal, but because once again Napster is encouraging stealing music.

Let's hope the RIAA (think that's right) can see this and quickly pull the plug on this service.

MorganX

Nov 8, 2003, 07:41 PM

Originally posted by Ja Di ksw
if I'm reading this correctly, I disagree. It seems to me you are saying that this is what should be, its the "right" thing. "I bought it, I should be able to get it again if something happens to it" type of thinking. While that would be nice, its unrealistic to expect that it "should" be done, or they owe it to you, or anything like that. If I buy a cd and scratch it, or it gets "thrown away accidentally" I don't get to go to the store and get a brand new one for free. To take it to the extreme, if I buy a car from Saturn and accidentally wreck it, I don't get a new free one from Saturn. Anyway, just my .02

If you meant it should be there because it would attract more people, and nothing about what Apple is obligated to do, then I agree with you. This would attract more people.

Why not compare it to software, and that is what it is. If you by MS Windows, or Mac OS X, I can't speak for Apple but you can get replacement media with proof of purchase for nominal cost to cover shipping and the cost of the CD.

What is the shipping and cost of an AAC download?

If you wreck your new Mercedes, they will replace it. You only have to pay time and materials for the broken parts. What's the time and materials to replace a lost AAC download?

If you buy and ice cream cone, lick it on yout way out and drop it. 9.999 out of 10 stores will replace it. It doesn't really cost them anything. Even if it does cost them something, the negative customer relations impact will cost them magnitudes more.

I would feel comfortable betting that any retailer that sells and item or service that can be replaced for free, will not charge you for replacing the identical item.

You can argue the opposite to death and technically and legally may be correct. But in America, there is common sense, customer service, and "competition."

Now, in a marketplace as competitive as the USA, for new potential customers, how much impact do you think knowing that if something happens to the digitial song you bought, apple will try to squeeze you to pay again when it cost them nothing to replace it, and with our service, hey we understand, just download it again.

And remember, you're trying to snare joe and mary everday user still scared of a mouse and worried about using their credit card online. Time to start thinking of this as just another business, not the domain of geeks and technicalities that make no business sense.

deepkid

Nov 8, 2003, 07:44 PM

Originally posted by scem0
Apple has a more flexible DRM?

Can you please explain why you think this?

(I apologize for the lengthy post in advance.)

Sure thing. You'll see Napster's terms and conditions in my reply, which can be read in full here: http://www.napster.com/terms.html

No iPod support

" You may transfer a Purchased Track an unlimited number of times to portable devices that are compatible with the Service's Usage Rules and security requirements. "

I have two iPods and sorry, no iPod support, no business from me. Embrace AAC and then maybe we could talk about it.

Apple bests Napster, with regard to burning purchased music

" You may burn each Purchased Track to a CD up to five times as part of any particular playlist of songs. "

I'd like the ability to be able to burn my purchased tracks to cd as many times as I can. Napster allows 5, Apple allow 10 times with a particular playlist, then at least switch the track order and burn again, etc. Does Napster, or are we stuck at burning the purchased track 5 times tops, regardless of playlist order? Hmm.

Not able to share my tracks with friends, using Napster?

From their terms: " You may not authorize, encourage or allow any Tracks or Materials used or obtained by you to be reproduced, modified, displayed, performed, transferred, distributed or otherwise used by anyone else."

Can I not share my tunes purchased on Napster with others? I know that I can with iTunes.

===

You go on to say:

So even if you don't use Napster's premium service, Apple's service and Napster's services are next to identical.

Not even close. Based on what I said above, and factoring in the ability to send gift certificates and set allowances, Napster's services still leaves something to be desired.

Bah, if apple offered this service before Napster did, then everyone here would be praising it. That is what makes me mad. Many people here are saying it isn't useful, or that Apples service is better just because Apple made it.

Perhaps that's true in some instances, but that surely isn't my stance. However, when Apple unveiled its own music service, it was radically different and arguably better that the other offerings at that time. To me, it still is. They've continued to push it ahead in a very short period of time, whereas competitors have generally been piddling along trying to satisfy the record industry while locking the customer in handcuffs when it comes to buying music online.

I could also flip what you said and reply that if Napster had offered this service before iTMS, more people (especially the wintel-loving media) would be praising Napster and dooming Apple to obsolescence for not stepping up to the plate with a service that was at least two times better, while cheaper.

With that being said, you shouldn't be alarmed by a fair number of pro-iTMS consumers. Apple come through with a revolutionary rights management arrangement that captured the attention (and pocketbooks) of the masses, did an excellent job of brand awareness and doesn't have the bad stigma that Napster has yet to shed.

You say :

If I had to use either service, I would definitely go for the Napster service. It offers anything apple has to offer and more. AAC vs WMP is a very close battle. Despite popular opinion among mac-heads, WMP is a very good format. I could really care less though. Both formats are good enough. Any differences will be so miniscule that they wont matter.

I'll chose to politely and strongly disagree. Napster's service clearly does not offer everything iTMS and vice versa, but I prefer iTMS with that being said. I've had much less than satisfactory experiences with most Micrsoft products and do not plan to embrace wma. It is not an open standard and to support it at this time is to support a company that has acted as an enemy towards many things that I respect and support.

Don't get me wrong. I love iTMS and I love iTunes. But, as of now, if I had to choose a service I would use Napster to buy songs, and I would use iTunes to play them. For me, and I think a lot of other people, that is clearly the better service.

Oh is that so? At this point, it is clear that most buying customers prefer iTMS.
http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsArticle.jhtml?type=technologyNews&storyID=3773123&section=news

You say:
I won't bother trying to convince some people on this, because some Mac users are just too damned stubborn to admit that Apple can be bested. I'm not saying this is true for everyone. For some people the iTMS is better than Napster, but I think that there are very few people like that.

I would argue that based on Napster's standard service (compare apples to apples), most are turned off by what they'd get compared to what Apple currently offers. You'd have to pay to get the better benefits of Napster's services, which is truly unattractive compared to iTMS.

Also consider that mac users are likely accustomed to iTMS and iTunes. At this time, Napster for mac is just a rumor, so don't really expect any enthusiastic support for them until rumors become more than vapors.

fatfish

Nov 8, 2003, 07:48 PM

Don't quite understand why the debate about replacing lost songs goes on.

Apple wont replace your music and neither will Napster, why should they you lost it.

It might be a selling point if someone offered it, but they don't, so why debate it in an itunes vs Napster discussion.

arn

Nov 8, 2003, 07:59 PM

Originally posted by fatfish
The first is not true, Apple have the edge on this one.

The first is true..

So all things seeming equal if not slightly in Apples favour, how about the things the administrator didn't mention.

This thread was only about DRM. I've said it before.... there are plenty of reasons not to like Napster. The DRM shouldn't be one of them (assuming you like iTunes' DRM)

arn

arn

Nov 8, 2003, 08:08 PM

Originally posted by deepkid
Can I not share my tunes purchased on Napster with others? I know that I can with iTunes.

No, you can not share your purchased music from iTunes with your friends.

With the actual files, you can't due to technical reasons (DRM).

With burnt CDs, you physically can, but legally aren't supposed to.

arn

fatfish

Nov 8, 2003, 08:10 PM

The first is not true, Apple have the edge on this one.

The first is true.

From what I have seen songs are limited to a maximum of 5 burns with Napster, which makes the administrators point untrue.

I accept the post was about DRM, but in the long run the issue is surely what effects this will have on sales, if the DRM are roughly the same then it is even more important to look elswhere to compare products.

If one was deciding to buy a ferrari or a skoda, one would not be content with the fact that they both use the same tyres (and before anyone says anything, I know they don't)

sethypoo

Nov 8, 2003, 08:11 PM

Originally posted by ColoJohnBoy
I don't understand the point of the subscription service. iTunes already provides streaming, on-demand, commercial free radio and it doesn't cost a dime. Also, if I'm going to pay money for music, I don't want it to "expire" if I choose not to renew my subscription.

And are they supposed to make themselves competitive by knocking four cents of the price of an album? Give me a break.

Yeah, I agree, but I think that with Napster, you can keep your songs even after you subscription runs out. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that's the way it is.

It would be great it Apple did something like this. $9.95 for *unlimited* burns would be so great! Especially if the songs were yours to keep for good.

Apple would probably need to set a limit on them, say, 200 songs per user per month or something along those lines.

I'd subscribe!

arn

Nov 8, 2003, 08:13 PM

Originally posted by fatfish
[B]
From what I have seen songs are limited to a maximum of 5 burns with Napster, which makes the administrators point untrue.

Maximum of 5 burns per playlist

Each individual song can be burnt an unlimited number of times.

arn

Raidiant

Nov 8, 2003, 08:16 PM

well to me I don't care either services won't work out for me I live in hong kong and own an ipod. I thank apple for providing such **** coverage for the world and providng a ridiculous closed system that no other service can use.

who cares if itms is the best store in the world if I can't access it and I bought an ipod i'm a customer who deserves to have access. If napsters *could offer ipod functionality then I would fly to it.

ITR 81

Nov 8, 2003, 08:17 PM

Also if they did replace your music I bet it would be selective replacement as I doubt they would replace just any and every song. I think you would have to have good reason for losing it.

I think the RIAA will eventually be contacting Napster and their sub. service will vanish. Because like others have said..why can't I set up a prog to take advantage of this? They say unlimited so that should mean in on session I should be able to DL all 500,000 tracks they offer in about a 3-4 month period. And once I apply the hack to them I pay nothing except the sub. fee for 3-4 months.
I have feeling folks of the music industry will have hissy fit when folks start doing this.

sethypoo

Nov 8, 2003, 08:17 PM

Regardless, iTunes will always have the edge, because we've got AAC, the iPod, and more burns per playlist. It's all good over here at Apple!

However, I will give napster a try if they are kind enough to take the time to put it onto the Mac platform. I know that this has already probably been addressed, but what kind of media format will Mac users be able to download with if napster comes to the Mac?

fatfish

Nov 8, 2003, 08:21 PM

If we are only talking DRM, I would never support a product where the DRM seems to be aimed at encouraging piracy.(subscription)

jettredmont

Nov 8, 2003, 08:21 PM

Originally posted by MorganX

What is the shipping and cost of an AAC download?

30 cents, more or less.

Which is why it doesn't make sense to add an additional 2-3 cents administrative costs per download for the minute minority of users that both can't figure out how to back up their data and end up losing their music libraries because of it.

I agree that it would be good PR to support re-downloading of songs. However, no one today offers it (not even Napster; that is a misconception). Thus, unlike replacing an ice cream cone dropped on the floor, this is not standard business practice. Should it be? Yes, it would be nice if it was.

ITR 81

Nov 8, 2003, 08:21 PM

Just use get a US Credit Card. Heck you can get them over the internet. I have buddies in the UK and Japan doing this until Apple opens a store for them.

If you want to complain you should complain to companies that holds the rights of the artist like the RIAA because thats who neg. the deals with Apple or whomever.

fatfish

Nov 8, 2003, 08:23 PM

However, I will give napster a try if they are kind enough to take the time to put it onto the Mac platform. I know that this has already probably been addressed, but what kind of media format will Mac users be able to download with if napster comes to the Mac?

wma, without a doubt.

jettredmont

Nov 8, 2003, 08:42 PM

Originally posted by deepkid

" You may burn each Purchased Track to a CD up to five times as part of any particular playlist of songs. "

I'd like the ability to be able to burn my purchased tracks to cd as many times as I can. Napster allows 5, Apple allow 10 times with a particular playlist, then at least switch the track order and burn again, etc. Does Napster, or are we stuck at burning the purchased track 5 times tops, regardless of playlist order? Hmm.

I read that (although I can understand the confusion) as saying that any particular playlist can be burned five times. A song can be burned an unlimitted number of times, according to other promotional literature. So, if you change the order or any song on the playlist you can burn more than five copies.

IMHO, this isn't a huge advantage, but I can see it biting me. I have a few playlists that I've burned three times already (lost the disk, or the disk ... well, melted in the car is I guess the best description :) ). I can definitely see myself hitting the five-burn limit on playlists I really enjoy. 'Course, if you don't really care about your order of songs it won't bother you in the least ...

From their terms: " You may not authorize, encourage or allow any Tracks or Materials used or obtained by you to be reproduced, modified, displayed, performed, transferred, distributed or otherwise used by anyone else."

Can I not share my tunes purchased on Napster with others? I know that I can with iTunes.

Really? How? Purchased iTMS songs can only be listened to on three computers. Yes, you can share your ripped CD's with whoever wants to stream them, but AAC/FairPlay files are strictly limitted to three PCs and infinite iPods. Kinda like the same as Napster-bought tunes.

jettredmont

Nov 8, 2003, 08:48 PM

Originally posted by sethypoo
Yeah, I agree, but I think that with Napster, you can keep your songs even after you subscription runs out. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that's the way it is.

No. Napster's Terms of Use specifically say that once your subscription ends all of your downloaded tracks (not 99-cent tracks; those downloaded under the auspices of the Premium service) will be inoperable. Any streaming downloads (which from what I hear is the majority of Napster's 500k songs - stream-only) are of course not available without a current subscription and internet connection.

In fact, it even goes into detail explaining how this happens (files need to be "renewed" every 30 days; if it's been more than 30 days since a file has been renewed it will not play; renewal consists of connecting to Napster's servers and verifying a current subscription).

The only files that are "yours forever" are the standard downloaded 99-cent files (just like iTMS tunes).

jettredmont

Nov 8, 2003, 08:50 PM

Originally posted by fatfish
If we are only talking DRM, I would never support a product where the DRM seems to be aimed at encouraging piracy.(subscription)

Huh?

How is a subscription model encouraging piracy?

Is a subscription model more complicated to administer and therefore an easier target for crackers? Of course. But I can hardly call that "encouraging" copyright infringement.

Wankie

Nov 8, 2003, 09:16 PM

Their seems to be a BIG misunderstanding about how napster works.

1. The Sync/Restore feature is FREE and UNLIMITED. If you buy some songs and delete them or lose them or whatever, if you hit the button EVERY SONG YOU HAVE EVER PURCHASED WILL BE REDOWNLOADED FOR FREE. There are ZERO extra costs or limits. You can do it as many times as you want on any of your 3 authorized computers.

2. You can burn any song you purchase as many times as you want. Only the playlist is limited to 5 burns. You can change the playlist order and burn it for another 5 burns as well. and again and again and again, etc.

3. You don't have to have a subscription to get 30 second previews of EVERY SONG in napsters library. The subscription means you can playback FULL LENGTH previews of every song.

4. The 500,000+ song library is NOT licensed under different agreements. EVERY song has a preview, costs 99 cents to purchase, copied to portable WMA players, can be freely playbacked if you have subscription, and can be Sync/Restored an unlimited amount of time. Napsters library continues to be about 100,000+ songs larger then the ITMS. Both are adding songs at the same rate.

5. You can playback Napsters protected WMA in the Napster client, Windows Media Player, MusicMatch, Winamp 2/3/5 with plugins, and other clients as well. MusicMatch and Napster songs are cross compatible.

6. You can browse and STREAM (if you have the subscription service) and users COMPLETE library (Members Collections its called) if they choose to share it. Pretty much your own free form radio station that you can skip arround and playback any song you want.

Just clearing things up.

LethalWolfe

Nov 8, 2003, 09:16 PM

Originally posted by fatfish
If we are only talking DRM, I would never support a product where the DRM seems to be aimed at encouraging piracy.(subscription)

This thread is full of stupid, uniformed, and/or blind fan-boy posts but this one has to take the cake. Following that logic you shouldn't support Apple either because of the "share playlist" feature. :rolleyes:

deepkid,

1. What does DRM have to do w/iPod support? Correct, the answer is nothing. And even if DRM did have something to do w/player support following doesn't Napster have "looser" more consumer friendly DRM because it supports a multitide of players where iTMS supports only one?

2. As stated repeatedly, many times, over and over again you have unlimited burns per track for BOTH the iTMS and Napster. Only the playists have a burn limit. 5 vs. 10 Ohhh big deal there...

3. " You may not authorize, encourage or allow any Tracks or Materials used or obtained by you to be reproduced, modified, displayed, performed, transferred, distributed or otherwise used by anyone else."

You can't do that w/iTMS either. Play list sharing is a function built into iTunes, it has *nothing* to do w/DRM.

Waving Arn's banner here... If you don't like Napster that's fine. I don't care. But if you are going to bash Napster could you at know WTF you are talking about first and dislike Napster for legit reasons and not assumptions and misinformation?

Lethal

coolsoldier

Nov 8, 2003, 09:20 PM

People have commented that there is a problem with the subscription service if Napster goes under. The thing is, there's a problem with ALL of the services if the go under. Because the DRM is run off of their servers, if they go out of business, not only will you no longer be able to listen to your "tethered" downloads, you will also no longer be able to authorize your 99Â¢ downloads on any other computers. The same is true of apple's service. If the store you buy from goes under, the next time you buy a new computer, you're screwed.

That said, Napster looks like a reasonable competitor to iTMS, but for the time being, here on a college network, I have all of the "tethered" downloads I want through iTunes' sharing service ;)

Sabenth

Nov 8, 2003, 09:34 PM

Hmm whats hard to understand about napster theres a few options

subscribe = well you subscribe to have music tracks from there network on your digital device pc or player

Direct Download = Well you download pay a 99cent fee and the tracks yours same as with iTunes

what more do you people want to know...

DRM IS IN PLACE BECAUSE OF LABELS RIAA AND WHO EVER ELSE OWNS THE BAND / ARTISTS BY THE BALLS...

thatguy_youknow

Nov 8, 2003, 09:35 PM

I don't know about most of you, but I rarely burn cd's. I use my iPod in my car via an 1/8" mini-jack on the back of my stereo head unit and a 3 foot 1/8" - 1/8" cable that comes out of my ashtray.

I have not burned a CD in nearly a year.

jettredmont

Nov 8, 2003, 09:43 PM

Originally posted by Wankie
Their seems to be a BIG misunderstanding about how napster works.

1. The Sync/Restore feature is FREE and UNLIMITED. If you buy some songs and delete them or lose them or whatever, if you hit the button EVERY SONG YOU HAVE EVER PURCHASED WILL BE REDOWNLOADED FOR FREE. There are ZERO extra costs or limits. You can do it as many times as you want on any of your 3 authorized computers.

Are you sure? Their Terms And Conditions page says differently.

Sync/Restore. Napster will maintain a record of your Purchased Tracks. You may use the "Sync/Restore" function to obtain another copy of those Purchased Tracks for up to two additional computers that you own.

AND

If you have Purchased Tracks, it is your responsibility not to lose, destroy or damage them. Napster shall have no liability to you in the event of any such loss, destruction, or damage.

Certainly, unlimitted access to sync/restore is NOT a part of their terms and conditions (and as such may either be an anomaly/bug or it may be revoked at any time without even the terms of use changing).

4. The 500,000+ song library is NOT licensed under different agreements. EVERY song has a preview, costs 99 cents to purchase, copied to portable WMA players, can be freely playbacked if you have subscription, and can be Sync/Restored an unlimited amount of time. Napsters library continues to be about 100,000+ songs larger then the ITMS. Both are adding songs at the same rate.

Hmmm. Published reviews at launch had seen numerous files searched for available only for streaming, not for download. Maybe this has changed since then.

I do agree, however, that all songs which are available for download have the same restrictions. MusicMatch and Napster learned from BuyMusics stupid freshman mistakes.

6. You can browse and STREAM (if you have the subscription service) and users COMPLETE library (Members Collections its called) if they choose to share it. Pretty much your own free form radio station that you can skip arround and playback any song you want.

Which is, essentially, nothing more than a playlist service, plus a mechanism by which Naptsters servers' load is offloaded onto its subscribers. 'Cause, of course, you can just download those same songs from Napster by itself, right?

Seems odd that I'd be paying $10 a month and using another poor sap's bandwidth to stream my songs instead of streaming them from the company receiving my money. Also seems odd that I'd want to waste my bandwidth streaming to others and pay for the priviledge.

jettredmont

Nov 8, 2003, 09:49 PM

Originally posted by coolsoldier
People have commented that there is a problem with the subscription service if Napster goes under. The thing is, there's a problem with ALL of the services if the go under. Because the DRM is run off of their servers, if they go out of business, not only will you no longer be able to listen to your "tethered" downloads, you will also no longer be able to authorize your 99Â¢ downloads on any other computers. The same is true of apple's service. If the store you buy from goes under, the next time you buy a new computer, you're screwed.

Somewhat true, except that with purchased tracks, should Apple go under (and, do you really think that is as likely as Napster going under?), you (1) have the life of your current PCs (as opposed to <30 days) to figure out a solution, and (2) you can burn your tracks to CDs (or whatever media is supported by iTunes at the time) and be DRM-free. Subscribed tracks can not be burned.

The only possible face-saving measure to this would be if Microsoft took over Napster's legacy subscription service to avoid a digital-music armageddon. Not sure if that would be a viable solution, but it's a remote possibility at least.

acj

Nov 8, 2003, 09:49 PM

The big advantage for me is WMA. WHAT?

Well, my car plays WMAs. Show me a car deck that plays AAC.

tychay

Nov 8, 2003, 09:53 PM

Originally posted by jettredmont
30 cents, more or less.

Which is why it doesn't make sense to add an additional 2-3 cents administrative costs per download for the minute minority of users that both can't figure out how to back up their data and end up losing their music libraries because of it.

The cost of AAC download is much less than 30 cents (more or less), but I understand what you mean. The 30 cents referred to also covers

Apple R&D for iTMS servers, iTMS in iTunes, Fairplay support in iPod
Apple lawyers to negotiate deals
Credit card charges are very sizeable: Apple mitigates this by authorizing 1c on your card (AUTH) and billing for all your purchases made that day at the end of the day (CAPTURE).
Advertising budget: think how prevelent iPod and iTunes ads are.
bandwidth costs for free samples.

I imagine that Napster hopes to survive by:

Allowing Microsoft to mitigate the costs of the former which is sizeable. Think: MS did all the heavy lifting for the Mac port by launching WMP for Mac. Of course, some of that is returned to them in the extra overhead of Microsoft IDEs, Windows server licenses, and again when/if Microsoft is able to extract monopoly rents through licensing fees down the road
Allow Apple and others to trailblaze the deals.
Hoping people opt for bulk or subscription models which allow them to mitigate the flat fees for CCs in the monthly subscription.
Simply not advertising as much.
Using a "tethered download" system so that music listened to isn't streamed but listened to once. This isn't a peer-2-peer system (like the original Napster) so costs should still be high. Also, it does leave things open to piracy.

Cheaping out on advertising was probably the biggest tactical error given their launch was so miserable--being outsold by iTunes 5 to 1 on launch implies 10 to 1 the following week (if iTunes dropoff applies to Napster) and that is (I assume) not even counting the inflated Napster count of the ton a free songs given away (to Neilsen SoundScan it's all the same).

This means it's a big money loser which is picked up only by the revenue from the subscription model. Consider that under iTMS (and we can assume under Napster's pay-for-download model) only ~ 11 cents/song ends up being split among the artists (big 5 labels, more if you sign with the indy). It begs the question as to how much the artist gets in the Napster subscription instance--I would think they don't see a cent: red, canadian or otherwise.

The fact that Napster isn't a stand-alone player probably weakens its offering to consumers the most. Certainly the lack of iTunes and iPod support will be a deal killer in the Mac world. My guess is they hope that Microsoft again solves this problem for them in the Windows world, which is the only one they care about. I would guess, that the Mac product is to help them get inroads into higher education paying for their service as part of student dues a la Penn State--however I think few Uni's will actually bite on this as piracy will probably increase in that school, especially among seniors near finals week ;)

Still, it seems as good a model as any. I think RealOne/Rhapsody will have to revise their model to compete and MusicMatch will have to change their tune a little (pardon the pun). Also this probably kills off BuyMusic.

None of this has anything to do with DRM. Like Arn said, the DRM in Napster is good.

Wankie

Nov 8, 2003, 10:01 PM

Originally posted by jettredmont
Are you sure? Their Terms And Conditions page says differently.

Certainly, unlimitted access to sync/restore is NOT a part of their terms and conditions (and as such may either be an anomaly/bug or it may be revoked at any time without even the terms of use changing).

Hmmm. Published reviews at launch had seen numerous files searched for available only for streaming, not for download. Maybe this has changed since then.

I do agree, however, that all songs which are available for download have the same restrictions. MusicMatch and Napster learned from BuyMusics stupid freshman mistakes.

Which is, essentially, nothing more than a playlist service, plus a mechanism by which Naptsters servers' load is offloaded onto its subscribers. 'Cause, of course, you can just download those same songs from Napster by itself, right?

Seems odd that I'd be paying $10 a month and using another poor sap's bandwidth to stream my songs instead of streaming them from the company receiving my money. Also seems odd that I'd want to waste my bandwidth streaming to others and pay for the priviledge.

I emailed napster support 3 days ago and they confirmed that Sync/Restore is an unlimited service. I tested it by deleting and sync restoring my files 10X. I also authorized a couple of other computers and did same thing. Worked perfectly.

The old preview editions Napster had songs that were stream only, the release version apparently doesn't

You can browse anyones playlists and songs but the bandwith comes from napster. You don't use the bandwith from the persons computer, the person doesn't even need to be signed on.

kcn3s

Nov 8, 2003, 10:03 PM

Wankie

Nov 8, 2003, 10:08 PM

Originally posted by kcn3s
I thought that was allowed in iTMS?

It is. You just have to pay the $.99 per track and $9.99 per album restore fee. :D

jettredmont

Nov 8, 2003, 10:10 PM

Originally posted by Wankie
I emailed napster support 3 days ago and they confirmed that Sync/Restore is an unlimited service. I tested it by deleting and sync restoring my files 10X. I also authorized a couple of other computers and did same thing. Worked perfectly.

The old preview editions Napster had songs that were stream only, the release version apparently doesn't

You can browse anyones playlists and songs but the bandwith comes from napster. You don't use the bandwith from the persons computer, the person doesn't even need to be signed on.

Ahh, so good to have real experience instead of going by the Terms and Conditions!

Thanks for the corrections. :)

ITR 81

Nov 8, 2003, 10:15 PM

Well I've contacted Napster about their Sub. service. I asked if there is an actual limit to the Sub. service on downloads of their 500,000 track lib.

As for CD players that use AAC:
I've found 12 personal CD players that support it just in the US.

I betting that since most all companies are making CD players with AAC included means alot of their in car CD player will have it as well.

LethalWolfe

Nov 8, 2003, 10:31 PM

Originally posted by Sabenth
DRM IS IN PLACE BECAUSE OF LABELS RIAA AND WHO EVER ELSE OWNS THE BAND / ARTISTS BY THE BALLS...

DRM is in place because people, speaking in generalities, can't be trusted not to pirate. The only people that like copy protection and/or anti-theft/pirating hardware, software, and/or devices are the people that make them and the people that sell them. For everyone else it's just another expense and a possible PITA.

Lethal

arn

Nov 8, 2003, 11:23 PM

Originally posted by ITR 81
Well I've contacted Napster about their Sub. service. I asked if there is an actual limit to the Sub. service on downloads of their 500,000 track lib.

As for CD players that use AAC:
I've found 12 personal CD players that support it just in the US.

I will bet none of those support Protected AAC's -- the kind you buy from Apple's iTunes.

If I'm wrong... tell me. I'll post a front page MacRumors story about those players cause that would be HUGE news.

arn

deepkid

Nov 8, 2003, 11:32 PM

Originally posted by arn
No, you can not share your purchased music from iTunes with your friends.

With the actual files, you can't due to technical reasons (DRM).

With burnt CDs, you physically can, but legally aren't supposed to.

arn

You are right. I was actually thinking of the jukebox portion of iTunes and not the bought tunes on iTMS but did not revise this in my draft. Thanks.

acj

Nov 8, 2003, 11:37 PM

Originally posted by arn
I will bet none of those support Protected AAC's -- the kind you buy from Apple's iTunes.

If I'm wrong... tell me. I'll post a front page MacRumors story about those players cause that would be HUGE news.

arn

Yikes, that probably means my car won't play napters similarly protected WMA's either. Poop.

And as for the previous comment about several devices playing AAC files, well there are a lot more that play WMA. In fact I would bet the iPod is the ONLY player that plays AAC but NOT WMA.

If they could all just stick with MP3 and the honor system:p

arn

Nov 8, 2003, 11:48 PM

Originally posted by acj
Yikes, that probably means my car won't play napters similarly protected WMA's either. Poop.

These 40+ CD players will play Protected WMAs.

Edit: Sorry.... those won't.

Supported Protected WMA devices (http://windowsmedia.com/9series/Personalization/CoolDevices.asp?page=4&lookup=CoolDevices)

deepkid

Nov 8, 2003, 11:50 PM

Originally posted by LethalWolfe
[B]This thread is full of stupid, uniformed, and/or blind fan-boy posts but this one has to take the cake. Following that logic you shouldn't support Apple either because of the "share playlist" feature. :rolleyes:

... and more dramatic banter

Lethal,

There was no bashing. It was a statement of preference. 5 extra playlist burns might not mean much to you, but is does to me and others.

Also mentioned in my reply to Arn, I was referring to iTunes and not the iTMS tracks, as incorrectly typed. Since the iPod isn't supported, Napster's DRM is moot to me. It would only raise a brow if it significantly pushed beyond the user liberties that Apple was able gain from the record industry.

If you choose to wave Napster's banner, knock yourself out.

Sabenth

Nov 8, 2003, 11:55 PM

what i was trying to put across was this..

All the formats that are out there for selling audio music in what ever format its in wma aac etc etc have lets say some restrective controll over them for good reason. Artists can spend hours days even weeks working one track and then they go to there label if there with one god knows these days. and they go id like to put this on blah blah. a Label is in charge of most artists conentent they decided what dose and dosnt get posted they want tracks to go up that are easy to download but with posible cripling effects of what the end user can and cant do with that digital file.. In the end you can only do what you want to do with the file by all acounts if your smart enough you should back up what you download and you should also maybe back up that backup as well..

DRM allows us the end user to do some things it allows the lable / artists get some cash and not get ripped off by the Kaaza types out there or should i say Napster types lol..

I dont see anything majorly restrective in what iTunes / Napster are doing with the music just seems to me people want to be able to do a lot more with the whole side of burning songs on to cd hmm lets see now if you burn to cd then rip them to another cd blah.. i might be wrong here seeming i dont use any services at this present time that envlove burning Music to CD ..

I am toatly off the plot here arnt i .. as usual

arn

Nov 9, 2003, 12:10 AM

Originally posted by deepkid
It was a statement of preference. 5 extra playlist burns might not mean much to you, but is does to me and others.

You realize that simply creating a new playlist with the same songs, or rearranging the songs in your playlist will give you 5 or 10 more burns (depending on which one we're talking about).

arn

coolsoldier

Nov 9, 2003, 12:15 AM

Originally posted by jettredmont
Somewhat true, except that with purchased tracks, should Apple go under (and, do you really think that is as likely as Napster going under?), you (1) have the life of your current PCs (as opposed to <30 days) to figure out a solution, and (2) you can burn your tracks to CDs (or whatever media is supported by iTunes at the time) and be DRM-free. Subscribed tracks can not be burned.

I don't suspect apple to go under. But Apple doesn't exactly have a history of following through with what they start. OpenDoc, anyone?

And yeah, I know there are ways around the DRM with either service, but if Napster (or MM or BuyMusic or insert-other-iTunes-clone) dies and leaves thousands of users in the dark with music they can't play, it will be a significant blow to the entire market. At that point, I'm worried, no matter what service I use.

Personally, I won't buy anymore online music until they come up with a format that doesn't require the continuing support of the distributor to use.

The only possible face-saving measure to this would be if Microsoft took over Napster's legacy subscription service to avoid a digital-music armageddon. Not sure if that would be a viable solution, but it's a remote possibility at least.

Or if one of the other services bought up their lists to save the market, but neither of those is really something I think we can count on.

reyesmac

Nov 9, 2003, 12:20 AM

Originally posted by greenstork
...Other than that and the 5 vs 10 playlist burn limit, these are identical DRM's. They're offering the same service with extra features than iTunes, wake up people. :rolleyes:

So I guess that means that you can play Napsters songs on iTunes or any other Apple music player? If that is the case then it is only a case of brand preference, if not, I will stick with iTunes.

LethalWolfe

Nov 9, 2003, 12:25 AM

Originally posted by deepkid
... and more dramatic banter

Lethal,

There was no bashing. It was a statement of preference. 5 extra playlist burns might not mean much to you, but is does to me and others.

Also mentioned in my reply to Arn, I was referring to iTunes and not the iTMS tracks, as incorrectly typed. Since the iPod isn't supported, Napster's DRM is moot to me. It would only raise a brow if it significantly pushed beyond the user liberties that Apple was able gain from the record industry.

If you choose to wave Napster's banner, knock yourself out.

I don't care if it was preference or bashing. Your statement questioned whether Napster let you burn playlist a play list 5 times or a single track 5 times even though it has been repeatedly stated in this thread that you get unlimited burns per track on both services (iTMS and Napster). It was the unbelievable inaccuracy of your statement that I was addressing.

And if you consider informing people of their misinformantion and/or ignorance reguarding a product flag waving then I guess I'm just a flag wavin' SOB.

How is the extra five play lists mean a lot? All you have to do is create a new play list w/the same songs or rearrange the songs in the current play list and it resets the "burn counter."

Lethal

EDIT: Arn's post musta gone up while I was typing... damn you fast Arn'! ;)

Raidiant

Nov 9, 2003, 12:32 AM

I think the reason other services don't support the ipod, is because apple being them probably imposed some stupid rule or design that disallowned the ipod to download music like the other mp3 players. they probably programmed it with itunes so it will only work with itunes.

and I don't want to get a US credit card I don't want to go through the trouble and I know how US companies will deal with my information I give them online.

As with tradition "support" has NEVER been apples key strength or emphasis either. You want cheap good support anywhere everywhere use pc stuff.

Sabenth

Nov 9, 2003, 12:35 AM

If i maybe so bold to point this out but why would you need to make upteen copys of the same play list onto cd

ie why would you make say 5 copys of the same disk 2 yea but 5 why oh why

Sabenth

Nov 9, 2003, 12:37 AM

Just thought of somthing why dosnt everyone just buy cds

coolsoldier

Nov 9, 2003, 12:40 AM

Originally posted by Sabenth
Just thought of somthing why dosnt everyone just buy cds

If you want to buy an entire album on disc, buying CD's is the best way, but if you want a mix of, say, travel music, you would want to burn it to CD. Of course, I personally see no reason why anybody would need to burn the same playlist to CD more than once...

7on

Nov 9, 2003, 12:42 AM

If you wanted to burn more playlists, just create a new playlist and put the same songs back into it.

Taavi

Nov 9, 2003, 01:58 AM

Originally posted by arn
These 40+ CD (http://windowsmedia.com/9series/Personalization/Devices_CDPlayers.asp) players will play Protected WMAs.

Arn, unless I'm mistaken or missing something, none of the CD players you linked to can play protected WMA. In the legend there is a star that means "Music Service Friendly" and none of the CD players on that page have that star next to them. Also this link (http://windowsmedia.com/9series/Personalization/Devices_CarStereos.asp) shows that microsoft does not recognize any car stereo which is "Music Service Friendly."

Darren

Nov 9, 2003, 02:43 AM

This seems to be going round in circles.

Arn's point is that the DRM is about the same except for subscription, which has never been very successful.

When most average users choose between the services, they will not choose because one has better DRM. They probably won't even choose because of the format (WMA/AAC) - they won't even know the difference.

The choice will probably be made on brand awareness and marketing, support for their portable player of choice and ease of use.

This is Apple's advantage at the moment - especially the iPod and ease of use.

The lead on each of these points can change with a bit of effort from Napster or Apple - Apple needs to continue to innovate and market.

A concern for Apple is the fact that support for WMA (and therefore Napster with a small download) is built in to Windows (just like Internet Explorer). Does this make iTunes too hard for the average user? Will every PC magazine have the iTunes client on its cover CD?

Just my 2c.

SiliconAddict

Nov 9, 2003, 02:53 AM

Originally posted by deepkid

I think that AAC along with Apple's more flexible DRM, and iTunes are critical in this discussion.

Here's the thing that many Mac users just aren't getting or are just ignoring so that have a leg to stand on when bitching about WMA.

WMA's flexibility is as good as AAC. You guys don't get it. Its companies like Napster and MusicMatch that implement restrictive or flexible Digital Rights and those comes from what terms they work out with the various labels.
You guys NEED to understand WMA can have literally NO rights on the files. (e.g. you can make 10,000 copies of the WMA if you like.) or make it restrictive as heck (e.g. you are only able to play on the original machine.) The rights can be set.

Codec’s and open standard vs. close standard is an entirely diff discussion. I trust MS Media Player 9 codec (The codec MM and Napaster is using.) as far as I can toss the MS campus.
I do no trust MS from dicking with the format in the future if/when the encryption is cracked and I think its a forgone conclusion that WMA's DRM will be cracked, if for no other reason then to allow DRMed songs to play on Linux. Once that happens what’s to keep MS from going back to the drawing board and creating a new codec for Windows Media 10, 11, etc and who’s DRM is not compatible with DRM in Media Player 9?

Truth be told I expect AAC to be cracked as well once a clear leader in the digital music realm is firmly decided. Right now Apple is in the lead. Whether they stay in the lead depends on their marketing and their flexibility to adapt to their competitors offers. If Apple is still on top in 2 years I expect the headlines at news.com to read “AAC encryption foiled.” Don’t kid yourself people. Any DRM can be broken with enough time and determination. Just because it has the Apple seal of approval on it doesn’t make it hack proof.

deepkid

Nov 9, 2003, 03:11 AM

Originally posted by arn
You realize that simply creating a new playlist with the same songs, or rearranging the songs in your playlist will give you 5 or 10 more burns (depending on which one we're talking about).

arn

Sure knew that about iTMS, but that's why i went "Hmm." in an earlier reply about Napster, based on their published terms and conditions. Lawyers could have a ball playing with the wording in there. But if they let you burn 5, then shuffle.. God bless them.

But to emphasize what was in my last post, I believe that the more flexible end user liberties are, the better for what we're currently paying.

If I'm going to pay $9.99 for a Cesaria Evora album at an online music store over paying $12 at cdconnection.com for the commercial cd, let me do more with the purchased digital files since I'm not getting the physical cd, case or artwork.

I may not burn 10 copies of a given playlist consisting of songs bought from these stores, but it sure as hell makes me feel better about my purchases that I can.

How is this useful? How many of us have scratched cdrs before? Misplaced them? If you're fond of a particular playlist order, these are just two examples of where the extra burns come in handy. It helps to compensate for not receiving the traditional commercial cd, which will hopefully drive more people to buy online.

ITR 81

Nov 9, 2003, 03:16 AM

Originally posted by Taavi
Arn, unless I'm mistaken or missing something, none of the CD players you linked to can play protected WMA. In the legend there is a star that means "Music Service Friendly" and none of the CD players on that page have that star next to them. Also this link (http://windowsmedia.com/9series/Personalization/Devices_CarStereos.asp) shows that microsoft does not recognize any car stereo which is "Music Service Friendly."

This goes for all the AAC players out there. I don't believe they can use the protected AAC format.

SiliconAddict

Nov 9, 2003, 03:25 AM

Originally posted by Darren
.

The choice will probably be made on brand awareness and marketing, support for their portable player of choice and ease of use.

Interesting,

I would hold that Apple has a better brand awareness then Napster. More accurately a more appealing brand then Napster.
Any time I've ever heard about Napster it’s usually in ref to “that music service for stealing songs” or something similar. I think the average person somewhat knows of Napster and any person under the age of 25, yes it’s a general statement so take it as a guess, definitely knows of Napster. (I wonder what % of the high school population has D/Led the prelegal version of Napster?)
There is a brand recognition there but it’s a vague one. One attached to massive legal problems, along with bankruptcy, and pirating.
Now look at Apple. It’s almost always in a generally good light albeit a proprietary one. I don’t make up the facts guys. It’s how apple is perceived. The iPod is known as a solid music player and you can bet with Apple’s advertising campaign they will increase their brand awareness even further.
Personally I think Napster isn’t the one to worry about. I’ve downloaded their software. Its not good. In fact after a day of use I uninstalled it. Its POS. No its Music Match that will be the competition in the long run. The player is solid. The features are broad. The Digital Rights are almost as good as iTunes. The big question I have is this: Can music from Napster play on Music Match and Media Player and vis versa? Both are DRMed WMA files handled by MS’s DRManager. If this is the case its possible that one could download music from both Napster and MM possibly having a very large combined selection of music.

I think the only thing at this point that could really hurt iTMS, and something I’ve pointed out time and again, is the 70% of the digital audio market that are not AAC based devices. (30% market share by iPod is states stated by Jobs himself in October.)
So little Johnny that just got a shiny new MP3/WMA audio player for X-mas last year gets a Pepsi that wins an iTMS song. He goes home, installs iTunes for Windows, downloads the song, mistakenly copies it to his MP3 player, and…..nothing happens. He then says screw this and tries Napster and low and behold his downloaded song runs. I don’t care what you guys say this will be an issue in the future unless Apple can drastically increase the market share of the iPod.

ITR 81

Nov 9, 2003, 04:20 AM

But he would encounter the same issue with the protected AAC format. The protected WMA format will not play either and the only players it will play on is that Samsung player that Napster's got it's name on. And Music Match has Dell's DJ. To me what I'm wondering if MusicMatch and Napster use the same protected WMA format or are they different which could be the case, if so then they are in same boat as iTunes. Now if they have same exact protected format then they will some advantage having two players on the market that will play protected WMA tracks.

Sabenth

Nov 9, 2003, 04:30 AM

Freaking hell fire !!!

ITS BEEN STATED I DONT KNOW HOW MANY TIMES BY ARN THERE IS NO DIFFRENCE AT ALL BETWEEN iTunes and Napster ..

Just that Napster offers a subscription option which is no better or worse than anyone else....

WMA AND AAC PLAYERS IN CARS OR HANDS OR HOUSES why arnt you people just putting your music to mp3 ... jeezzz

_____________-----__________------_

Audio quality my Ass if your buying songs online well exspect them to be of lesser quality than say cd or dvd ...

SiliconAddict

Nov 9, 2003, 05:57 AM

Originally posted by ITR 81
But he would encounter the same issue with the protected AAC format. The protected WMA format will not play either and the only players it will play on is that Samsung player that Napster's got it's name on. And Music Match has Dell's DJ. To me what I'm wondering if MusicMatch and Napster use the same protected WMA format or are they different which could be the case, if so then they are in same boat as iTunes. Now if they have same exact protected format then they will some advantage having two players on the market that will play protected WMA tracks.

Interesting. Well looking at:
http://windowsmedia.com/9series/Personalization/Devices_PMDs.asp

I'm seeing every device from creative supporing DRMed WMA. The iRivers which i think is #3, after iPod and Creative, do not support DRM, however keep in mind that this can be solved by a simple ROM flash update. AFAIK this is as simple as any update Apple has put out for the iPod. I think, assuming our question about DRMed WMA files being cross compatible is YES, that many of these players will scramble to get DRM support else they will be blown away by those devices that slap a sticker on their box stating: 100% compatible with Napster and Music Match. In the mean time Apple is sitting pretty due to 100% compatibility. Point to Apple.

SiliconAddict

Nov 9, 2003, 06:02 AM

Originally posted by Sabenth

ITS BEEN STATED I DONT KNOW HOW MANY TIMES BY ARN THERE IS NO DIFFRENCE AT ALL BETWEEN iTunes and Napster ..

Wow Sabenth. Cool off. You are going to have a heart attack if you aren't careful. Which would suck over something like Napster. If you are going to die do it over a Windows vs Mac rant. :p ;)

Oh and there is a difference - The software and that IMHO is rather important.

ITR 81

Nov 9, 2003, 06:51 AM

Well a good number of players do support AAC but not the protected format because I believe Apple right now is keeping it to themselves..which might be good and bad. Bad that there is no other player to use but iPod with iTunes. Good is that it's the top player and probably will stay on top when the 4 gen comes out next yr.

All I know I'm buying a new iPod this coming yr if it comes with more features and possibly video play back.

DGFan

Nov 9, 2003, 09:36 AM

Originally posted by Sabenth

ITS BEEN STATED I DONT KNOW HOW MANY TIMES BY ARN THERE IS NO DIFFRENCE AT ALL BETWEEN iTunes and Napster ..

Well, actually, I have seen the questions asked many times but never answered:

1) Is it possible to de-authorize one of your three Napster authorized computers so that another, fourth computer can be authorized in its place?

2) Is it possible to download to a player songs downloaded using one of the two additional downloads Napster allows?

Until those two questions ARE answered it is not possible to say that there is no difference between iTunes and Napster in terms of DRM.

arn

Nov 9, 2003, 09:48 AM

Originally posted by Taavi
Arn, unless I'm mistaken or missing something, none of the CD players you linked to can play protected WMA. In the legend there is a star that means "Music Service Friendly" and none of the CD players on that page have that star next to them. Also this link (http://windowsmedia.com/9series/Personalization/Devices_CarStereos.asp) shows that microsoft does not recognize any car stereo which is "Music Service Friendly."

you are correct. apologies.

This list is the supported Napster/BuyMusic Ones:

http://windowsmedia.com/9series/Personalization/CoolDevices.asp?page=4&lookup=CoolDevices

and I don't see any CD players.

arn

arn

Nov 9, 2003, 10:01 AM

Originally posted by deepkid
But to emphasize what was in my last post, I believe that the more flexible end user liberties are, the better for what we're currently paying.

You can claim this if you wish. But I'd be willing to bet that if suddenly, Napster provided 10 playlist burns and Apple only 5 playlist burns... that you would not suddenly switch services.

In other words, I think you're making rationalizations to support Apple's service just because you like it for other reasons.

And I will be the first to say, I prefer Apple's service.... but I'm not going to try to convince myself and others it's due to a trivial # of playlist burns which is not a practical limitation. (since simply creating a new playlist with the exact same songs will reset the burn count)

arn

MorganX

Nov 9, 2003, 10:46 AM

Originally posted by arn
you are correct. apologies.

This list is the supported Napster/BuyMusic Ones:

http://windowsmedia.com/9series/Personalization/CoolDevices.asp?page=4&lookup=CoolDevices

and I don't see any CD players.

arn

I hadn't seen the RIO Eigen before. Pretty sweet. But 1.5G for $329, what were you guys saying about how cheap everything non-ipod was? But you do pay for miniaturizaton. Not that much though.

sushi

Nov 9, 2003, 10:58 AM

Originally posted by SiliconAddict I don’t care what you guys say this will be an issue in the future unless Apple can drastically increase the market share of the iPod.
Unless the iPod/iTunes is modified to play WMA files. Then it won't matter.

Sushi

deepkid

Nov 9, 2003, 12:40 PM

Originally posted by arn
You can claim this if you wish. But I'd be willing to bet that if suddenly, Napster provided 10 playlist burns and Apple only 5 playlist burns... that you would not suddenly switch services.

In other words, I think you're making rationalizations to support Apple's service just because you like it for other reasons.

And I will be the first to say, I prefer Apple's service.... but I'm not going to try to convince myself and others it's due to a trivial # of playlist burns which is not a practical limitation. (since simply creating a new playlist with the exact same songs will reset the burn count)

arn

I did not base my disinterest in Napster solely on playlist burns. Check the earlier posts to see that I listed several reasons why iTMS is arguably a better service over Napster. I know that you're focuing on DRM, which is important, but the average customer will judge those rights as only part of the total experience. In fact, I don't think that many will care, until they bump into a wall. How much of the total potential customer universe would bother to discuss this to the depths that we're doing?

But to directly respond, even if Napster decided to add 15 playlist burns, that would be a step foward for end user liberties (which would be great) but it still would not interest me (and a number of others) because of WMA. Until/unless they support the iPod with an offering that comforts the record industry (not mp3, but similar to Fairplay+AAC), it's not an option for me. I'll also add that even if Apple decides to support WMA, I likely won't.

Thanks.

jettredmont

Nov 9, 2003, 12:42 PM

Originally posted by Sabenth
If i maybe so bold to point this out but why would you need to make upteen copys of the same play list onto cd

ie why would you make say 5 copys of the same disk 2 yea but 5 why oh why

Because if you use those CD-R's in the car they degrade over time ... at least out here in the California sun they do. Lifespan of a CD-R in a car stereo is significantly shorter than the lifespan of a pressed (ie, commercially produced, like the kind you buy at Best Buy or Sam Goody or Strawberries or whatever) disk. Over time, you'll start noticing the last tracks skipping, and then eventually they are unplayable.

Re-burning the playlist onto another CD solves the problem.

jettredmont

Nov 9, 2003, 01:03 PM

Originally posted by MorganX
I hadn't seen the RIO Eigen before. Pretty sweet. But 1.5G for $329, what were you guys saying about how cheap everything non-ipod was? But you do pay for miniaturizaton. Not that much though.

It is pretty nice, if you want really tiny (smaller than iPod because it uses a 1" drive instead of 1.8"). The only fault with it is interface: I believe it's just plain impossible to have a usable interface for selecting music files on a device smaller than the iPod, at least for my somewhat average-sized American fingers ...

arn

Nov 9, 2003, 01:03 PM

Originally posted by deepkid
I did not base my disinterest in Napster solely on playlist burns.

I know this is going nowhere... but I felt I should point out that this was all sparked from the following exchange:

deepkid: I think that AAC along with Apple's more flexible DRM, and iTunes are critical in this discussion.

Reply: Apple has a more flexible DRM? Can you please explain why you think this?

deepkid:
1. No iPod support
2. Apple bests Napster, with regard to burning purchased music
3. Not able to share my tracks with friends, using Napster?

1. If flexibility is what we're talking about, Protected WMA could be considered more "flexible" (supports more # of players)
2. Napster has 5, iTunes has 10 (per playlist).
3. We've pointed out that iTunes can't share DRM'd tracks either.

So, yes, I do think you've based your "Apple's more flexible DRM" on the playlist option. And perhaps it offers slightly more, but as I said in an above post, it's of trivial significance.

I know, I know - there are plenty of reasons for a Mac user to prefer iTunes.... and as I said I prefer iTunes. That being said.... the contention that continues to be the basis of this entire thread is your claim that iTunes DRM is more flexible than Napster DRM.

Perhaps it is - based on playlist burns... but trivially so.

I'll maintain Napster rights are essentially equal to iTunes rights. That is my point. No one should claim to choose one or the other based on "better or worse" digital rights.

arn

MorganX

Nov 9, 2003, 04:54 PM

Originally posted by jettredmont
It is pretty nice, if you want really tiny (smaller than iPod because it uses a 1" drive instead of 1.8"). The only fault with it is interface: I believe it's just plain impossible to have a usable interface for selecting music files on a device smaller than the iPod, at least for my somewhat average-sized American fingers ...

That's an excellent post. Before iPod I owned 3 different Rios, 600, 800, 900. I was always frustrated with the UI and the limited screen size.

You know, listening to all this and seeing all the competition sprouting up, I think the end result will be Apple realizing that an iTunes that supported all these new players and WMA (even if only on non-iPod players) could be sold for $39.95. I know I'd buy it. Heck, if iPod does lose marketshare, Apple should turn iTunes into the universal music store client. Sell it for $39.95 or license it to the music services. I know it's free now, but add player and WMA support and charge for "iTunes Plus!"

If you really think about it, personal preferences for UI and form factor asisde (which tend to even out), the clear undisputable difference that no one has yet to come close to imitiating, is iTunes, the software.

I have not opened WMPlayer (for audio purposes) since iTunes4W was released. And 90% of my time in iTunes is spent managing my library, browsing the music store, and creating playlists for the gym. Syncing with the iPod is a transparent afterthought (credit iTunes again). The iTunes experience has universal appeal that is only tied to iPod and iTMS because that's makes the best business sense for Apple right now. A codec's a codec, download a new one; flash firmware for new DRM. But the user experience is in the software and that is what will always be in demand if people know about it. Right now, I don't think more than 3% of PC users realize how great iTunes is. When more do, they would pay for it.

BaghdadBob

Nov 9, 2003, 05:19 PM

I agree with arn here, the DRM is remarkably similar, and the limit on playlists is minutia. The subscription option is a nice option. although I, myself, would not use it, it's just another way to make money. However, it opens the door wide open for hacks to proliferate huge volumes of ill-gotten music. As one poster noted already, I don't think it'll last long once the reprecussions are realized, much like the internet sharing option in iTunes.

SpyMac was making a big deal about promoting the abuse of that iTunes feature, and now no one gets to enjoy it. Thanks assholes. That really makes me mad, the one time I took advantage of it I discovered some music I really liked. Thanks again, guys!

AAC is a big factor, I think, that has been largely ignored here. Are these other services selling 128-bit MP3? If so, they're ripping their customers off. MP3 sounds like crap, which is why, until iTunes 4, I never got into ripping tunes onto my computer, because at a reasonable bit rate, MP3 sounds crappy. AAC at 128 is really quite good. So what are people actually getting for their dollar? That's the important part.

If a store opened selling DVDAs for $13, and three others were selling CDs for the same price, if you could use the DVDA format, which would you patronize?

Plus, the integrated experience is a selling point. But I don't know anything about the Napster interface (nor do I care to) so I won't comment, except in that I know the iTunes experience is great. Howzabout Napster?

[Edit] OK, so WMA is the format of choice for this sevice, and I think the BuyMusic stupid store. So how does WMA compare with AAC? If it's anything like WMV vs. Quicktime...well, I think that analogy speaks for itself...

ITR 81

Nov 9, 2003, 05:32 PM

After asking about Napsters prem service. I was told by Napster that you can DL an unlimited number of tracks and unlimited number of streams. You have to renew your music at the end of each month unless you pay your monthly fees.

I asked if there was an limit and apparently according to the email I got they don't. This means hackers will have field day with Napster...and so will RIAA.

I'm going to ask Napster how do artist get paid if I pay for the service and I download over 20 songs a month and I don't pay the 99 cents to allow me to burn them and such? I doubt they can answer that.

arn

Nov 9, 2003, 05:35 PM

Originally posted by BaghdadBob
[Edit] OK, so WMA is the format of choice for this sevice, and I think the BuyMusic stupid store. So how does WMA compare with AAC? If it's anything like WMV vs. Quicktime...well, I think that analogy speaks for itself...

You can't compare anything you know about WMA from the Mac side. We've been behind a few generations for a while. (with respect to WMA)

arn

BaghdadBob

Nov 9, 2003, 05:53 PM

Originally posted by arn
You can't compare anything you know about WMA from the Mac side. We've been behind a few generations for a while. (with respect to WMA)

arn
But how do the formats compare for audio quality? We know how AAC compares to MP3, but I don't know about WMA for quality.

I should hope that WMV is superior on the Windows side, cause it sure sucks on the Mac side.

As for WMA...I've never bothered.

micvog

Nov 9, 2003, 08:47 PM

Regarding WMA vs. AAC... I have tried both thanks to Napster giving me 5 free songs. On my PC w/a SB Live card and BA 745 2.1 speakers there is a slight but noticeable difference in AAC's favor. I am not an audiophile, but there seems to be more range (lower lows and higher highs w/AAC).

Of course, something must be wrong with my downloads because I have had no problem playing them on my iPaq 2215 w/WM9 which, based on the link provided by ARN, shouldn't be able to play the files. :confused:

Not my problem much longer... an iBook or eMac is in my future REAL soon.

ITR 81

Nov 9, 2003, 10:28 PM

Same here I'm just looking for G5 PM and a G5 PB and maybe new iPod if it comes out playing videos.

Trekkie

Nov 10, 2003, 01:48 PM

For me this is like 'so?'

Why do I say that?

I have iTunes Music Store, and an iPod. Why change? to use Napster how I use my current setup I have to go out and buy a new MP3 player that is harder to use.

billyboy

Nov 10, 2003, 05:18 PM

Slight differences in DRM or the WMA v AAC debate are going to be irrelevant in the near future. In order to stay in business, Napster and the rest are going to have to come clean about the realities of using a download music store.

- Each store has its own style of DRM but apart from marginal difference, DRM is effectively a necessary and similar evil for all stores.

-Because of choice of DRM each store will only support a limited number of digital music players for direct downloads from their store.

-In order to expand their market share of music downloads, stores are going to have to advertise to the world that basically ANY digital MP3 player can play any downloaded tune from ANY store as long as the download is reripped into MP3. Therefore the quality of the search, buy and download experience is going to be far more important than say the number of tracks available from any particular store, (For the most part the track count will be fairly similar amongst the big boys - one goes ahead, the rest catch up).

- In order to sell their digital players, manufacturers are also going to have to advertise the same universal fact, ie a decent MP3 player can play any download as long as the track is ripped into MP3 or other format supported by their player. Therefore the quality of the player´s functions becomes more important than the fact it recognises the drm-ed tracks from any particular store.

This is what I believe Apple know has to happen if the catch up kids are to stay in business in the long term. At the moment the opposition are bluffing and trying to be cute, but just selling their own DRM-ed tunes to theshare of the market not controlled by Apple right now is a sure road to death. Likewise limiting sales of own brand MP3 players to your own customers simply because you want to try and discredit iPod is another foot shooting exercise.

Unfortunately for the rest of th ecatch up kids, because the world will soon understand that any download track froma store can theoretically be played on any MP3 player, sales of digital players will again be judged on function not compatability with direct download services - and we all know which is the king of that little castle.

iDave

Nov 11, 2003, 12:51 AM

I don't think most people are going to want to bother re-ripping their songs as MP3, a process that requires burning to CD first. They will want a portable player that handles whatever DRM their music incorporates.

This DRM war really sucks because iPods won't play WMA and WMA players (for the most part) won't play AAC. It's like the whole Beta vs. VHS thing all over again. After you collect a bunch of music in one format, you would never want to get any in the other format. Not so bad as long as both kinds of players are available (forever).

billyboy

Nov 11, 2003, 02:20 AM

Originally posted by iDave
I don't think most people are going to want to bother re-ripping their songs as MP3, a process that requires burning to CD first. They will want a portable player that handles whatever DRM their music incorporates.

This DRM war really sucks because iPods won't play WMA and WMA players (for the most part) won't play AAC. It's like the whole Beta vs. VHS thing all over again. After you collect a bunch of music in one format, you would never want to get any in the other format. Not so bad as long as both kinds of players are available (forever).

I agree that right now most people are thinking just what you say, but the point Im making is, the reality of this new concept of buying music will become clearer and the DRM scenario will be more like Betamax AND VHS

Any music downloaded from an iTunes type store is essentially no different from the music bought on a CD from a store - ie both formats have to be re-ripped if you want to listen to and manage that music on ANY digital music player.

I dont see people with CD collections saying, "Sod iPod, I have to re-rip my whole music collection to use an iPod." Its the opposite isnt it. People are falling over themselves to change the format to suit their iPod.

So its only a mindset thing right now about being averse to whichever store on the basisof DRM compatability. It´s just a matter of time before people realise that yes, it is incredibly convenient to download AAC tracks from iTMS straight onto their Apple brand MP3 player - the same as putting a new CD straight into a CD player is ultra simple - but as most people will expect the freedom to buy music from any sort of iTunes store, and listen to it on any MP3 player it will become blindingly obvious that a simple re-rip (just like CD to MP3) will answer all their questions.

And Steve Jobs I am sure knows the drm war will become irrelevant and the competition will be back to what it was pre iTunes for Windows - the best digital player will win regardless of whether people have to re-rip their original music to use it.

iDave

Nov 11, 2003, 08:45 AM

Originally posted by billyboy
So its only a mindset thing right now about being averse to whichever store on the basisof DRM compatability. It´s just a matter of time before people realise that yes, it is incredibly convenient to download AAC tracks from iTMS straight onto their Apple brand MP3 player - the same as putting a new CD straight into a CD player is ultra simple - but as most people will expect the freedom to buy music from any sort of iTunes store, and listen to it on any MP3 player it will become blindingly obvious that a simple re-rip (just like CD to MP3) will answer all their questions.

And Steve Jobs I am sure knows the drm war will become irrelevant and the competition will be back to what it was pre iTunes for Windows - the best digital player will win regardless of whether people have to re-rip their original music to use it.
Trust me. When I eventually have hundreds of albums in Protected AAC format, I won't be burning them to CD in order to rip them back to another format just so I can buy a different music player. Likewise if I were a Napster 2 fan and had hundreds of WMA format albums, I wouldn't do that just to buy an iPod. Whatever format people choose now, they will likely stick with it forever. (Sure, there's a SMALL percentage that will go to that trouble and don't care about double lossy degradation. Not me though, and not most people, IMO.)