Napster Digital Rights Management (DRM)

[Ja Di ksw]

Re: A wise man can learn from a fool

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]

Steve?

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.... 😛 Maybe Phil ?😎

 

[ryaxnb]

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!

It's not like you have to se the premim serviec

 

[jettredmont]

Re: Re: AAC over WMV

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]

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

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

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.

 

[manu chao]

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

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]

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]

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

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]

Re: Re: Re: AAC over WMV

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]

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

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]

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]

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

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]

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

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]

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]

hacked (sort of)

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]

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]

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]

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]

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. 🙄

 

[poultryfarm]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

my favorite quote

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...