My initial guess is that certain artists' works (like independents and people with no other way of getting exposure) will be offered for free. However, you will be required to pay or subscribe for other artists' works. That's just a guess and I'm not sure how they'd implement it without changing the software. Another guess would be that mp3's somehow will be charged a fee while non-mp3 files won't. If the apes that run other labels would join the 21st century and climb on-board, I'd pay $4.95/month to download music. I use the value $4.95 because that's the "example" that the CEO of Napster, Hank Barry, used in an interview. And of course, things don't look good for Scour either as they filed for bankruptcy last month before being bought out by Listen.com. Another music label, Universal, said there's no way in hell they'd join with Napster. Interesting crossroads for the music and digital media industry, eh? We may be on the edge of a change in the way music is delivered to end-users. ------------------ A friend of mine graduated from law school in May, and he's had a heck of a time finding work....He might be a moron, though. (I don't think he is, but one never knows. He was a moron when we were five years-old.) -- mrpaige reflects on his friends
This is definitely the crossroads for digital delivery of music. I think $4.95 is a tad low for free downloadable digital music, but it is better than nothing. I'm all for independant artists promoting their work and even signed artists doing the same if they feel ok about it. My problem is the bottom feeders on the music food chain. There are so many bands that are struggling to make ends meet and this could wipe them out. Metallica, Madonna and whoever else are full of crap if they whine about losing money because A. They have plenty and B. No one cares. The problem is that less than 1% of the industry is made of of artists like Metallica and other recording giants. The vast majority of artists struggle to get their records made and paid off. One band in the early 90's made 2 records. The first had some moderate success followed by a flop. Because the label pushed the band to spend a ton of $$$ on the record and videos, which the band had to pay back to the label out of royalties, the band ended up broke and dropped from the label. What is worse is that they were responsible for paying back the losses - over a million bucks. It took the singer (a fine session guitarist and now producer for some pretty well-known artists) nearly 5 years of constant work to pay off the label and get out of debt. This is the game that is played and the labels never suffer. With free downloadable MP3's, it is, unfortunately, just another way for working bands and musicians to lose money. I read some stats in the now defunct Musician Magazine about 2 years ago and it really surprised me. Of all artists signed to a recording contract, which is about 1 in every 50,000 bands who attempt to do so, less than 20% are able to make enough money from album sales to pay back the record company for the cost of making the record in the first place. Of the same group, less than 5% make enough money to pay their bills. Of those who are signed, more than 50% can be expected to be dropped prior to completing their second album. Odds are bad and the Napster's of the internet makes them worse. Of course the labels hate them, but I could give a rat's ass about them. The struggling musicians are the one's that worry me. I have many friends in this business and it is a tough one but they are trying to do something they love and survive. I wish companies like Napster made it easier, but they didn't. Imagine working hard on something and having your pay cut because some company was giving your work away without asking your permission. Wouldn't it piss you off too? ------------------ Save Our Rockets and Comets SaveOurRockets.com
Like Jeff, I buy all my stuff anyway, so it won't affect me. I have tried to use Napster, and have recorded a few songs off it, but my system at home is just too slow to even bother with it. The reasons I wouldn't mind being able to use it would be: To get songs that aren't available on CD -- bootleg live/studio stuff, etc. If the material I got from Napster ever became officially available in stores, I would most likely buy it. To possibly get a song that I'd want from a soundtrack or compilation without having to buy the soundtrack for one song. When I feel a band is being unreasonable, like in re-releasing old material while including only 1 or 2 new tracks to entice people to buy the same stuff over again. To hear a couple of songs from a CD that I had no intention of buying otherwise, to see if I liked the songs enough to buy the CD. I don't feel I'm hurting the band in any of these cases. But as I said earlier, I don't really use Napster, but if it was available to me, I may use it for the above reasons. I don't see myself paying for the service anytime soon.
I haven't bought a CD in four years, and I hope I never have to again. Call me a bottom feeder if you must, but that's just the way it is for me. At least I'm honest. Bottom line - if Napster remains free, I'll use it. If they start charging a fee, I'll look elsewhere. ------------------ My dream job is to be a Houston Rockets towel boy.
I was very greedy and have well over a thousand songs on my C: drive. I'll probably convert to the new software. Have they put a patent on Naptser software yet? If not, somebody will come up with something incredibly similar. Napster will fall off the edge of the earth. They have all but done themselves in if you ask me. Time will tell. My apologies to the artists who struggle, but this technology may in the long run benefit us all when we reach it's full potential. Man must explore. It's in our nature to do so. It's up to the three branches of goverment to tell us when we've gone to far. It's not up to Napster. ------------------ humble, but hungry.
I thought that you needed Napster to use Napigator. All it does is find alternative Napster servers (for example if your ISP has banned Napster, Napigator will find you servers that you can connect to through the Napster software). You may be right though. ------------------
Now that Napster has joined "the dark side" by forming an alliance with BMG and will be charging for the file sharing service, what're the rest of you going to do? Are you going to subscribe, are you going to switch/continue using Gnutella or Scour? Is the fact you can now share files other than music files with Napster going to entice you to stay (keeping in mind other peer-to-peer-type services already allow you to share files other than mp3's). ------------------ A friend of mine graduated from law school in May, and he's had a heck of a time finding work....He might be a moron, though. (I don't think he is, but one never knows. He was a moron when we were five years-old.) -- mrpaige reflects on his friends
I just buy the CD's anyway. I don't use the services, myself, so it doesn't effect me at all. ------------------ Save Our Rockets and Comets SaveOurRockets.com
Here's something from Napster's web site: http://www.napster.com/pressroom/qanda.html I guess this explains why I can still, for now, d/l songs from other users for free using Napster's servers. However, I find the part that I italicized interesting....is Napster/BMG going to start charging in order for us to use the file-sharing service at all, or are they going to explicitly charge for these so-called "enhanced features" (whatever they may be), and still offer the "bare-bones" (i.e. non-enhanced) service at no cost? Anyway, I believe that one of the big reasons why the vast majority of Napster users use the service is because it is free. Now if they're gonna start charging us so that we can continue file-sharing, then I would expect upwards of 85-90% of users to leave Napster and head elsewhere, like Napigator, Gnutella or Scour Exchange. In answer to the topic question, I haven't decided yet what I'm going to do....but I'm leaning towards checking out Gnutella and/or Napigator. ------------------
i was downloading mp3s for over a year before Napster even existed (i have had a cd burner since 1997). the process was never as simple as with Napster though. You had to find these FTP sites where you either had to sign up with some adult sex site to get the password or upload songs to get songs back. It was a big pain as sometimes you had to upload 3 songs or more just to be able to download 1. And you couldn't preview them. The CEO of BMG was on Charlie Rose and he was talking about charging $15 per month, which is ridiculous. If it is $5 like Hank Barry said then I will give it a try. But I have a feeling the 38 million users will shrink to about 10 million as a result, which would make finding specific songs a lot harder.
Hey Jeff.... Is that band you were referring to in your previous post Giant? The bit about the "fine session guitarist" made me think of Dan Huff. I remember him talking the band and its problems. He was always a fave player of mine (along with Landau) ------------------
I wonder since we are going to PAY for it now. Will it be ok for Resale? Will this legitimize the Street Vendor. I mean if CD Stores can Resale USED CDs . .. and you resale USED MP3s. Think about it. I can create a CD Label that is near the Original [Or call my self DJ MP3 and create my own] and resale it. Create CDs like those annoying 70s and 80s Best of's that you see in the wee hours of the night. What is to stop me from mass producing it and Resaling them? I paid for the songs. *shrug* I think this is a stop gap but like other say . . .it won't effect as many as they think. Many people are generally good folx. . . .They will pay the 5 bucks. [any more . . .you'll get more defection] Many will pay to be ./. 'legal and right' Jeff does this decision help the bands? NOT AT ALL I'm afraid. . . I think they will be HARD pressed to see a cent of that money Rocket River I used it . . but i did not download ------------------
stringthing: Good job! That's exactly who it is. I like Landau a lot too. Rocket River: It will help bands because labels are contractually obligated to pay them a percentage of ANY revenue no matter where it comes from. In addition, I've read that Napster and others will pay dues to ASCAP and BMI like everyone else which will send royalties to artists as well. The main thing is that it will plug the leak in the royalties and revenues dam. With a price on the downloads (or the subscriptions), it will discourage the free use and bootlegging that creates the problem. ------------------ Save Our Rockets and Comets SaveOurRockets.com
