Napster Digital Rights Management (DRM)

[jettredmont]

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]

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 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.

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]

The big advantage for me is WMA. WHAT?

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

 

[tychay]

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

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

1. Apple R&D for iTMS servers, iTMS in iTunes, Fairplay support in iPod
2. Apple lawyers to negotiate deals
3. 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).
4. Advertising budget: think how prevelent iPod and iTunes ads are.
5. bandwidth costs for free samples.

I imagine that Napster hopes to survive by:

1. 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
2. Allow Apple and others to trailblaze the deals.
3. Hoping people opt for bulk or subscription models which allow them to mitigate the flat fees for CCs in the monthly subscription.
4. Simply not advertising as much.
5. 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]

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]

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 thought that was allowed in iTMS?

 

[Wankie]

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

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. 😀

 

[jettredmont]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Re: Re: Re: Re: AAC over WMV

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]

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😛

 

[arn]

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

 

[deepkid]

Re: Re: And what's more

Originally posted by LethalWolfe
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. 🙄

... 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]

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]

Re: Re: Re: And what's more

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]

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]

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. 🙄

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]

Re: Re: Re: And what's more

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]

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]

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]

Just thought of somthing why dosnt everyone just buy cds

 

[coolsoldier]

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]

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