Napster Digital Rights Management (DRM)

[Fireball1244]

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]

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]

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]

Re: A wise man can learn from a fool

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

terms of service not quite right

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

What about the bands?

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]

AAC over WMV

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]

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]

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]

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]

Re: A wise man can learn from a fool

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?"

😀

 

[dguisinger]

Re: Re: A wise man can learn from a fool

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?"

😀

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]

Re: AAC over WMV

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 😱. Time for people to say how utterly wrong I am. 🙄

scem0

 

[ryaxnb]

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

 

[jettredmont]

Re: Napster Digital Rights Management (DRM)

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
- 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]

Re: Napsters sub. service will not last long.

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]

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.