Napster vs iTunes: Superbowl Ad

[shamino]

I have not been able to find any information about how Napster keeps you from using the music once terminate your account with them. I know when listening online with your computer you can no longer login and stream the music to your computer.

The DRM system has an expiration date somewhere - either in the player or in the files. When that date passes, the player stops playing the files. When your computer syncs with the Napster server (and your portable player syncs with the computer) to confirm that you're still paid up, the expiration date is updated.

Assuming the player uses a one-month expiration interval (I don't know what Napster is actually using), your portable player will refuse to play the songs one month after your last sync, whether you're paid up or not.

When you sync, the software will contact a Napster server to determine if you're paid-up or not. If you are, it will reset the expiration date to one month in the future. If you're not, it will tell the player to stop playing all of your rented files.

Can someone explain how once you download songs from Napster and put them on your iPod or other player and then terminate your account how these songs are not longer yours or usable. Not like it is a library or movie rental store where they know when you have not returned the borrowed item and charge you replacement or full retail costs.

The songs will time-out and expire after a certain amount of time if you don't sync the player, whether or not your account is paid up.

If you keep up the payments but don't sync the player for six months, it will refuse to play the files, just like it would if you cancelled the account.

 

[Maestro64]

When you sync, the software will contact a Napster server to determine if you're paid-up or not. If you are, it will reset the expiration date to one month in the future. If you're not, it will tell the player to stop playing all of your rented files.
The songs will time-out and expire after a certain amount of time if you don't sync the player, whether or not your account is paid up.

If you keep up the payments but don't sync the player for six months, it will refuse to play the files, just like it would if you cancelled the account.

Well this assumes your player has a clock and i do not believe all players have a clock in them. Second this assume you use their software to download songs to your player and keep that software on your computer to monitor your player. Now if you did get songs from Napster and put them on your Ipod you would have to use iTunes or some of the other utilities out there to get the songs on the iPod. There is no way for Napster to monitor what songs exist on your iPod and how long it was there. The only way to do this is to install software on the iPod and have it manage this.

To me this sounds like a lot of "what if." I do not see a foul proof way for them to keep you from downloading all the songs you want and use them for however long you want.

Remember, part of the reason Apple has been successful with their model is they control the content, the software and the hardware. The music industry like this. Where as Napster controls the content and maybe the software. Even with Apple controlling all 3, people figured simple ways around their DRM.

I would say, sign up for Napster, load up your iPods with every song you would ever want and terminate your account and enjoy for years to come. I just do not see how they can make it disappear or stop working on your iPod. So doing the math, $15, one month, 10,000 songs, full Ipod, terminate account, enjoy for years to come, Priceless!!!!

 

[HuskyDomains]

I'm not going to lie.. When this commercial came on, everybody on my floor in my dorm (University of Connecticut), was like HONESTLY WHO PAYS FOR MUSIC?!?!...

 

[cgc]

Nobody here is disputing this fact.

Everybody know that, within the context of this discussion, "own" means "have the ability to play the songs forever without paying any additional money."

The fact that you don't have the right to re-publish the material is not relevant to this discussion. I also can't re-publish a book, but only an extremely pedantic and desperate lawyer would waste his time stridently insisting that I don't own the 200 sheets of printed paper I bought at the local book store.

Someone previously stated:
I've said this before on another thread but just because you've purchased a CD does not mean you now OWN the music. You are only given permission to USE that music, under "fair use" terms. Ownership of that music is still left to the record label (or whoever). If you truly want to OWN the music, you can probably expect to pay a boatload of money to the rights holder.

Which implies we are all stupid. I was replying to him, not to the general audience of this forum.

 

[falcoboy7]

both commercials sucked

do u lose all ur napster music when u stop paying?

 

[Blue Velvet]

I'm not going to lie.. When this commercial came on, everybody on my floor in my dorm (University of Connecticut), was like HONESTLY WHO PAYS FOR MUSIC?!?!...

Somebody must do, otherwise it wouldn't be out there...
Do you expect artists to make entertainment for you for free?

When was the last time you sustained a career on giving your time and skills away for nothing?

 

[mrbrown]

Well this assumes your player has a clock and i do not believe all players have a clock in them. Second this assume you use their software to download songs to your player and keep that software on your computer to monitor your player. Now if you did get songs from Napster and put them on your Ipod you would have to use iTunes or some of the other utilities out there to get the songs on the iPod. There is no way for Napster to monitor what songs exist on your iPod and how long it was there. The only way to do this is to install software on the iPod and have it manage this.

I do believe that all of the players it is compatible with (the Microsoft "PlaysForSure" compatible players) are required to have a clock, as part of the whole DRM package M$ has developed. It won't work on players that are not compatible with Windows Media 10.

 

[Maestro64]

I do believe that all of the players it is compatible with (the Microsoft "PlaysForSure" compatible players) are required to have a clock, as part of the whole DRM package M$ has developed. It won't work on players that are not compatible with Windows Media 10.

Ah, that explains it, was not clear from them, they seemed to be saying they are offering an alternation to iTunes, so they have a product that only supports a small number of MP3 players presently available. So it is another move by M$ to obsolete hardware and force people to upgrade. Thus making more money for them and the hardware companies.

While they are at it why not rent you the player too, since what they are trying to say is you do not really own any of it. Hmm sound like AT&T and The Baby Bells when they rented phones to you. We know what the government did to AT&T.

It would not surprise me if they do not do what the Cell phone companies do, give you the player as long as you agree to a two yr agreement.

I would say beware of Greek baring Gifts...

 

[geoffism]

I'm not going to lie.. When this commercial came on, everybody on my floor in my dorm (University of Connecticut), was like HONESTLY WHO PAYS FOR MUSIC?!?!...

That's pretty funny...

 

[aloofman]

$15 is the cost of 1 CD a month.

I have around 200 CD's at ~$15 each so thats $3000.
At $15 per month my $3000 would = 16+ years of unlimited access to all my songs + sooooo much more. I wouldn't have to worry about scraching my CD's or the physical space to hold them. I would never have to go to my stereo to change my CD's.

That would be true if you were considering buying those 200 CDs, but opted to rent via Napster instead. But you've already bought those CDs. That money has been spent and, except for maybe transporting and storing them somewhere, those CDs are basically free to you now.

The key thing here is that it makes no sense to compare renting this huge library with the number of songs you already have at home. The comparison is to the number of songs you want at home but don't have yet. Are there 200 more CDs' worth of songs that you still want, but don't want to purchase? If so, then you've got the right idea.

I don't think this Napster rental idea is the scourge of humanity that others here are suggesting. There are people out there who don't have big CD collections but listen to the radio a lot. To them, it might seem like a cool idea to basically pay a subscription to have a customized, on-demand radio station on their computer. To anyone who already has an iPod, this sounds ridiculous.

My only objection is to the deceptive marketing campaign that compares their service to iTMS, which is apples and oranges. But then, deception is usually what marketing is all about, isn't it?

 

[neonart]

I hate to be such a fanboy, but every time one of these companies gets hot and bothered about trashing iTunes I go and look for a few more songs I don't have. I've bought some 15 songs in the last 3 days from iTunes.

Songs I wan to keep. Like Don Henley's New York Minute. I was surprised I didn't already have it. Thank you iTunes.

Does this happen to anyone else?

 

[fsck3r]

WORST COMMERCIAL EVAR!

 

[Warbrain]

To make some of you feel better about the ad, and I'm sure someone has already pointed this out, but the Napster ad was rated the worst out of all of the Super Bowl ads. So there we have it, people may be smart and realize that it's a scam.

 

[shamino]

Well this assumes your player has a clock and i do not believe all players have a clock in them.

You don't need an actual clock/calendar. You just need an interval timer.

I would assume that players without one will be unable to host Napster's DRM. It would probably also make them unable to host many other WMA-style DRM schemes, since Napster isn't the only one with features like this.

Second this assume you use their software to download songs to your player and keep that software on your computer to monitor your player.

No. It assumes that you sync the player with their software periodically. That doesn't have to be the same program you use to load the songs, although it probably would be.

Now if you did get songs from Napster and put them on your Ipod you would have to use iTunes or some of the other utilities out there to get the songs on the iPod.

You are aware that the Napster service is incompatible with iPods, and probably always will be.

There is no way for Napster to monitor what songs exist on your iPod and how long it was there. The only way to do this is to install software on the iPod and have it manage this.

And since Apple will never install a third-party DRM system, and they will never open up FairPlay, these Napster rental tracks will never be playable on an iPod.

To me this sounds like a lot of "what if." I do not see a foul proof way for them to keep you from downloading all the songs you want and use them for however long you want.

You have explained why the songs will never play on an iPod. You have said nothing about why they can't make them time-out on other players.

Why would it be so hard for Napster to come up with a DRM scheme that requires a timer chip in the player and to state that their service is incompatible with players that don't have them? It's not like WMA, or whatever they use, is that universal. Despite Microsoft's comments to the contrary, there are a huge number of non-iPod players that are incompatible with DRM-protected WMA files.

Remember, part of the reason Apple has been successful with their model is they control the content, the software and the hardware. The music industry like this. Where as Napster controls the content and maybe the software. Even with Apple controlling all 3, people figured simple ways around their DRM.

I would say, sign up for Napster, load up your iPods with every song you would ever want and terminate your account and enjoy for years to come. I just do not see how they can make it disappear or stop working on your iPod. So doing the math, $15, one month, 10,000 songs, full Ipod, terminate account, enjoy for years to come, Priceless!!!!

Again, who said that this Napster $15/mo service is going to be in any way compatible with your iPod?

Everything I've read says that it won't be. It won't even be compatible with Mac desktops.

They're inventing a service that only works on Windows, and only works on non-Apple players. In other words, they're trying to be the biggest fish in a very small pond that is getting smaller by the day.

 

[wdlove]

Somebody must do, otherwise it wouldn't be out there...
Do you expect artists to make entertainment for you for free?

When was the last time you sustained a career on giving your time and skills away for nothing?

We have to give them a pass because of their youth. They are ignorant and naive. When the receive their first paycheck, it will be quite an awakening.

 

[idiotekniQues]

Has anyone ever met or heard of someone actually paying for and using Napster? The only time I've ever heard of Napster even existing in the wild are those wildly unpopular agreements where universities force the service on students.

i pay for and use rhapsody. which is an online digital streaming service. that is 9.99 a month. i tried napster, the interface was not as likeable to me as rhapsody. it is great. i can install it on various comouters (need broadband) your playlists go with u, i get to experiment and get so many kinds of music and explore without 30 second clips limiting me. plus so many tracks i dont want to buy i can just have available for whimsical play. i have discovered a LOT of new music with rhapsody. plus for classical it is great, i can hear volumes of stuff and really dig by hearing the whole piece, and then soon i can take what i like with me. if i bought the music i find and listen to on rhapsody a month online, it would cost me 80-100 bucks. i can always keep it fresh this way.

along the way i will buy things i want to own. i am not rich at all, just a student with not too much xtra, but 15 a month to always have a 1 million track archive that grows, to listen to in full sounds good to me.

so i am gettin napster to go in a month when i get my mp3 player. since rhapsody has no to-go type service and find out if it is for me.

first i will download entire libraries of my fav artists. then i will start gettin one by one tracks. so i will always have with me say U2, and dave matthews. all the live shows that are on napster, etc.. all of james brown, a ton of bach, etc. always at my fingertips. and then i love to explore new music. downtempo, jazz, and new artists comin out. and that will be there too to listen in full. and if i like one song off an album, i can just get the rest. it is not for everyone, iTunes model is better for many. but to say one model is worthless cause of fanaticism, is stupid.

 

[idiotekniQues]

Will this new Napster subscription service succeed??? Your damn right it will. There are simply to many people who for their own reasons will not buy cd's. I myself prefer to own and support the artist that I love. That is why my 20 gig player has only music that I have purchased legally.

As a new Mac owner I have to say that I more than a little disappointed in some of the "attitude" that I read on this message board. There are tons of people here that are more than willing to offer great advice to newbies like myself and I have certainly read and learned alot since coming here. But a few seem to me more interested in ridiculing other OS's and not even bothering to give a decent answer to a question posted here other than than to spread their hatred for anything not Mac related.

Think about this....if I tunes offered a subscription service ALONG WITH their current method of selling music...you people would be bending over to kiss Apple's ass. But...since Napster thought of it first, oh no it sucks and it's stupid and it's lame etc etc etc. For ME a subscription service would not work. I prefer to actually OWN the real cd. Although I must admit that there are some artist that I like on the radio but don't like them enough to actually BUY their CD's. So this is where the marketing genious of a subscription service comes into play. Not only can I buy the music that I truly want to OWN and keep forever and play on multiple sources but I could also download and play a million different songs and when I got bored delete them and download some different ones...all for one low monthly price. Not only will the artist be paid for these downloads but I won't have to waste my money buying Cd's or .99 cent downloads that I'm not interested in keeping forever. Not a bad plan when you think of it like that.

LOVE my new Emac...AND will love my new Ipod WHEN they reach 100+ gig in size WITH video playback like the Iriver and a few others. I want ALL my cd's PLUS TV shows and movies I've recorded on my TV tuner card available in the palm of my hand. Hurry up Apple !!!!!

Russ

agreed. the mac/ipod/itunes attitude sucks.
i was tryin to read reviews about mp3 players and in every single review comment board, were people that prolly never saw the other player sayin, it aint an ipod it is 2nd rate. or about napster to go. if it aint itunes it is 2nd rate.

i almost bought an ipod. until i realized that other players are better in other ways. luckily i waded thru the fanaticism and apple cult and found that there are options that are for other people. after extensive research i know this summer ill be with a player overseas that i will be much happier with. and many people would be happier with an ipod.

 

[idiotekniQues]

I think my nbrothers had it with the PC world, he just had his computer, if we can call it that , infected with 600, yes, 600 little viruses.

The thing is at the shop now, man how can people put up with this?

By the way , how do you start your own thread here?

well there are ignorant pc users. i have built a few rigs. i havent had any damage done in years by a virus. neither have most my friends. if u r a noob or simpleminded in ure browsing habits, u will get viruses. windows has issues, that can be overcome with knowledge and prevention, it is really not that hard. xp is much better than any previos microsoft OS.

being a gamer, mac is not even a feasible alternative for me. plus i like building and having the option of tons of parts that i can pick from different manufacturers to upgrade when i want. its rather refershing. i dont deal with viruses, and i used to be a hardcore kazaa downloader too.

 

[idiotekniQues]

If anything is going to take down the iPod, it has got to be something sexy, sleek, and usable. So far no company has managed to do this.

Calihafan

jetaudio has, and is continuing to do so. that lil company has the formula down.

will they get market penetration? time will tell.

they are makin a buzz for themselves in the mp3 player non-ipod market. they won me over for my first player. sleek, sexy, and very usable, with a bunch more features. and better battery life.

 

[hulugu]

...i almost bought an ipod. until i realized that other players are better in other ways. luckily i waded thru the fanaticism and apple cult and found that there are options that are for other people.

Is it possible to ask for a moratorium on this whole Apple cult meme? I'm so sick and tired of hearing this over and over and over again. Yes, there are fans and fanatics on both sides of the issue.

Now, having tried several Mp3 players I have come back to the iPod each time. It's not just the interface, the size, weight and design, it's not just iTunes and iTMS, it's the whole thing. The other players don't offer such a streamlined interface that works so consistantly as to be almost invisible: the true measure of a mature technology.
Obviously, there are players with better battery-life—although most are suspect, battery technology is only so good—extra features, and work with WMA, and if that's your bag then more power to you.
But, just because I think the Dell DJ is a mediocre also-ran and that WMA is the worst of codecs and Napster's service is an absolute rip-off that subverts the previous and useful consumption of music into a subscription service where I own nothing sucks! doesn't make me a zealot, a fanboy, or any other name you can come up with.
Frankly, I stop listening to someone the minute they mention the apple-fanaticism because it just shows a unique prejudice that makes the whole conservation pointless.

So, cut it out.

 

[hulugu]

jetaudio has, and is continuing to do so. that lil company has the formula down.

will they get market penetration? time will tell.

they are makin a buzz for themselves in the mp3 player non-ipod market. they won me over for my first player. sleek, sexy, and very usable, with a bunch more features. and better battery life.

Good luck to JetAudio, they've got a nice-look (silver) and the remote is cool. However, just from looking at it I can see that the buttons are numerous and stick out. And, a radio, really? I have 40Gb of music, and I can make podcasts from the night before, what the hell am I going to do with a radio? I've never had any use for this particular feature; but I can see that some would...I guess.
The price isn't much better than Apple's iPods, but they do have a nice product, the achillies here I suspect is the software that JetAudio uses to sync, this is something iTunes is especially good at.
But, again good luck to JetAudio, they actually allow for Mac support, which is a huge plus for me; if a device won't work cross-platform it is not worth my time.

 

[hulugu]

...I don't think this Napster rental idea is the scourge of humanity that others here are suggesting.

A successful Napster is the second-sign of the apocalypse, haven't you been reading your Nostradamus?

There are people out there who don't have big CD collections but listen to the radio a lot. To them, it might seem like a cool idea to basically pay a subscription to have a customized, on-demand radio station on their computer.

Except now you've got a subscription to pay, music to download: 10,000 songs doesn't just fly down the pipe even on fast connections, music to sync, a player to manage (including that wonderful 'connect me' message they'll get) all to replace free, ubiquitous radio. Seriously?

My only objection is to the deceptive marketing campaign that compares their service to iTMS, which is apples and oranges. But then, deception is usually what marketing is all about, isn't it?

Well there's deception by omission (also called: pretty-happy-colors-with-cool-dancing-people) and then there's outright skullduggery.