Napster Digital Rights Management (DRM)

[BurntCalc]

Very nice

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]

Napster

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]

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

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]

Re: Re: AAC over WMV

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]

Should they replace music

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]

Re: Napster

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]

Re: Re: Re: AAC over WMV

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]

Re; Re; Napster

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]

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]

Re: Re; Re; Napster

Originally posted by fatfish

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]

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]

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]

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]

And what's more

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

 

[jettredmont]

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

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]

Folks in other countries can use ITMS

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]

here's the bum deal

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]

Re: Re: Re: AAC over WMV

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]

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]

Re: And what's more

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]

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]

Re: And what's more

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. 🙄


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]

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 99¢ 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]

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]

Burning CD's

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.