Students refuse to buy a single song from Napster

Students refuse to buy a single song from Napster

Even though it is 'free', students at Rochester University get songs through services other than Napster. The fact that all students have to pay, even if they do not use the service is not good value. Students should not have to pay for something they don't use, just to subsidise those that do. Just increases debt.

While the subscription service may seem good value, it is not as you can no longer play the music after you stop paying, so you are locked in. Napster ties you into Windows as well.

People do not want to be restricted with what they do with music. But the companies selling the music want to do this with DRM.

iTunes generates the same money in a day as Napster does in a quarter. It is for Mac and Windows (and Linux AFAIK if you get the right software, questionable legality though).

The perfect music solution would be one that used P2P, had an even wider range than iTunes (or better, all songs you could buy in the store, plus ones you can't) in a DRM-free format for a reasonable cost (iTunes pricing or lower, and not lock you into a player or force you to continue paying to play). Don't see that happening though, unfortunately. That is why P2P being used to share music is not going away any time soon (and if P2P is deemed illegal, then it will be a huge set back and discourage innovation, plus be bad PR for the company responsible for its demise).

I see it more like cable TV. No one worries that they won't be able to watch their cable anymore if they stop paying, its the same with Napster.

What you are paying for is access to full-length versions of thousands of songs a month, not just the 10 or so you could get from iTunes for the same price. You can listen to a massive variety, find out whats worth listening to more than a few times, and then decide if its worth spending the money on a permanent download from Napster, iTunes, or even buying the CD.

You are not locked in to Napster, since at any point you can cancel Napster and choose to subscribe to a rival service, and instantly have access to pretty much the same set of songs.

Its a Service you subscribe to for sampling music, not for building a permanent collection. As long as you recognise that there is not a problem.

iTunes still has its own lock-ins.
1) You must use a platform supported by iTunes, at the moment 2k, XP, or OSX 10.2+ What happens when the only version that can be "authorized" for playback is iTunes 7 which only works on OSX 10.6+ and Longhorn?
2) You must authorise your machine against Apples servers. Your "purchase" only remains useful to you for as long as Apple are still in business
3) You are responsible for keeping backup copies of all your tracks, even though Apple keeps detailed records of everything that has been purchased by your account. Eventually nearly everyone will suffer a hard disk failure and then all their valuable (but locked down) tracks with intact metadata and album art disappear.
4) You cannot sell or transfer your "purchases" to someone else.
5) The only portable players that support iTunes tracks are iPods.

(I have about 500 iTunes tracks, I'm now much more worried about keeping multiple backups, and I bought an iPod Shuffle to liberate the tracks from my Laptop)

eddwo wrote:

I see it more like cable TV. No one worries that they won't be able to watch their cable anymore if they stop paying, its the same with Napster.

You cannot compare subscription music services to subscription video services. With music, you want to listen to it over and over again. Compared to video, such as cable TV, where you're only really going to watch an episode of the Simpsons once or twice tops.

eddwo wrote:

What you are paying for is access to full-length versions of thousands of songs a month, not just the 10 or so you could get from iTunes for the same price.

Perhaps, but the songs from Napster are encoded at either 128Kbps or 190Kbps. I make it a point to have everything at 256Kbps MP3 (or OGG) or higher.

eddwo wrote:

You can listen to a massive variety, find out whats worth listening to more than a few times, and then decide if its worth spending the money on a permanent download from Napster, iTunes, or even buying the CD.

But wait... once you download it and stop paying the subscription fee you cannot listen to it again!

eddwo wrote:

You are not locked in to Napster, since at any point you can cancel Napster and choose to subscribe to a rival service, and instantly have access to pretty much the same set of songs.

SBC never mentioned being locked into Napster. You are, however, locked into the Windows platform. I won't be able to play songs "purchased" from Napster on my Solaris box, for example.

eddwo wrote:

Its a Service you subscribe to for sampling music, not for building a permanent collection. As long as you recognise that there is not a problem.

That's agreeable. But then, why do the Napster advertisements compare it to iTunes? (which is for building a collection)

And as for the iTunes Disadvantages, you're forgetting that a lot of them are applicable to Napster as well.

I can see Napster failing before Apple Computer, if Napster goes down then you're royally screwed. But I've heard (I think John Gruber blogged about it) that Apple might have a contingency plan to "unlock" all their songs if they do go under).

Besides, Apple isn't as evil as Napster.

Meh, Napster doesn't appeal to me. If I want to actually own the music, it's about the same price as iTunes, but whether a "rent" or "own" with Napster, I'm stuck with a Windows-only format and variable licensing restrictions. Napster seems like a stupid version of Satellite Radio.

Granted, iTunes has its own lock-ins, but it's at least multiplatform,  standards-based (e.g., AAC audio), and has consistent licensing terms. And one can use jhymn to remove the encryption from an iTunes track w/o re-encoding, yielding a file with no loss in quality that can be played on anything that can decode AAC.

W3bbo wrote:

You cannot compare subscription music services to subscription video services. With music, you want to listen to it over and over again. Compared to video, such as cable TV, where you're only really going to watch an episode of the Simpsons once or twice tops.

It depends on how you use it. Maybe you just want to check out the albums that are advertised on TV, or the ones reviewed in a magazine. How else are you going to find out if it is worth spending money on?

W3bbo wrote:

But wait... once you download it and stop paying the subscription fee you cannot listen to it again!

That depends on what sort of download you choose. A subscription download will run out, but a purchase download (79p) is permenent, and can be played on non-Janus portables and burnt to CDs.

I use iTunes about once every couple of months, and I cancelled my Napster subscription, but slagging off the subscription model when the iTunes "ownership" one is nearly as restrictive annoys me. If iTunes had a subscription model, where you could listen to full tracks rather than 30 second previews of everything in their library I'm pretty sure I would sign up right away.

Sure you can use Hymn with iTunes, but then you are breaking your user agreement and the rights you have to the music are revoked. There was also that Winamp hack that let you strip the DRM from Napster tracks. In which case you could gather far more unrestricted music, more cheaply using Napster + Winamp hack than iTunes + Hymn.

Bypassing DRM may be illegal, but isn't DRM as well? It goes against fair use (i.e. copying/backup for personal purposes). If you don't make any money from copying music, I see no problem with it, as long as you don't do it in a widespread way (i.e. give to lots of friends who may have bought the song).

Just search Google/Yahoo etc for "fair use DRM". They are not compatible really. The best format for online music is MP3, which is supported by most portable media players. It may not be an open format, but at least support is widespread.

sbc wrote:

Students refuse to buy a single song from Napster

Even though it is 'free', students at Rochester University get songs through services other than Napster. The fact that all students have to pay, even if they do not use the service is not good value.

The article makes it sound as though they don't use Napster at all. The actual survey differs.

http://www.rochester.edu/napster/surveys/fall04.pdf

It says that on finding a song they like on Napster 47% would stream it direct, and 39% would download the "tethered" version.

Its only if they decide to buy it that they seek another service or buy the CD.

Surely this sort of use is exactly what they are paying for. They don't need to be buying any songs, because the school has already paid for them to listen to as much as they like from the service.

I use Napster all the time (as a graduate Student, and it is paid for by my University) and it's absolutely great. I download all the music to my laptop or tablet and don't need to be online for it to run. And, as far as I'm concerned, its free. Sure, my tuition has bumped up some for it, but since I don't really "see the money", it's free, despite my blinders being on.

Napster's worth looking into, IMHO. I have only a few songs I've looked for that I haven't found yet on it. I don't like iTunes ( I'm still bitter that when I downloaded quicktime, it tried to automatically install iTunes...), so I can't really compare anything to it, but I sure like the fact that There are over 75 different MP3 players compatible with Napster.

JKelley,

Some good points, but you need to consider a couple of things:


* Forcing students who don't have compatible systems to pay for service is not insane. By having a legitimate service sponsered, there is less need for illegit stuff, reducing school liability. Big plus there. Similar issues have arisen for students whose "general purpose fee" goes to groups / actions and are completely "incompatible" with their believes (imagine in the US the college democrats and the college republicans).

* Exclusive deals often benefit the college financially and sometimes save colleges money. If my school promises to only buy Pepsi (gag) products but we get a 15% discount, great.. More money saved by me, or it goes to my school. Great example of this is not in colleges, but high schools where schools might not be able to afford a score board for a football field, but if they put a Coke sign on it, Coke will help them out. Win-win. Yes, it is advertising, but the schools, fans, and Coke wins out.

I agree that colleges should be centers of learning, but remember, they require money just like everyone else. Academia always has represented idealism, but they, too, need to be fiscally sound, else they close their doors and can't be the center of learning. Now if the federal / state / local governments were willing to pay 100% for everything, then they can ignore these pressures.. But, I'm sure the conservatives would call that communism and it would never happen. At least, not with this administration.

These days, when I want to get a particular track or album, the first thing I do is fire up Windows Media Player 10, and look for it on MSN Music UK.

If I can't get it there, I may resort to other ways of getting hold of what I want.

DRM has never gotten in my way, but I can appreciate it might do for some people.

I understand why people may not like DRM, but the pressure should be put on the government - not on technology companies like Microsoft - to ensure that our rights are protected.

MisterDonut wrote:

* Forcing students who don't have compatible systems to pay for service is not insane.

Feel like I am going to swear in church, well I feel daring today so...

This does make me think of communism.

The few (proletarian elite, the head of school or who ever made this deal) decides what the masses needs (proletarian, pupils).

Does this mean that american schools has embraced the ideas of Marx?

Why is it that with ITunes you have to install software to search the music store to see if they sell something you want? You don't with Napster and MSN Music.

Few points.

1. It is unfair to charge all students $5 for a music store that most won't use. Some students won't even own a computer themselves and will still be paying for this.

MisterDonut wrote:

By having a legitimate service sponsered, there is less need for illegit stuff, reducing school liability.

2. The college has no liability any more than your standard ISP has. The only thing the college has to do is keep logs and general information and cooperate when someone comes knocking. Which they STILL have to do even with them paying Napster (because there are still law enforcement and other companies).

If you believe you can explain why a college has liability for what a student downloads I would love to hear it, especially as it contradicts every case up to this point.

What I am against in schools is the kind of food/drink that you get via the vending machines / cantines. Sure the schools can save money (or even make some), but at the expense of children's health. I thought schools were about learning, and that includes eating healthily.

And people wonder why we have a weight problem and health issues. Bad food and threat of litigation are some of the reasons for that. Litigation because schools are afraid to do field trips, or do more physical sports because they are afraid of getting sued. That is the worse thing about the west - it is too easy to sue people without costing you anything, for what can be minor things (i.e. not broken limbs, but things far less serious, like a sprain). I can see it only getting worse. Even 10 years ago it was not as bad as it is now.

Manip wrote:

2. The college has no liability any more than your standard ISP has. 

Ah, lest you forget, I'm in America, home of the 40 million dollar scalding cup of coffee.

At the risk of a big tangent, just the threat of a lawsuit will cause insurance companies to settle out of court, even if there is no liability at all.. Just like now there are warnings (Warning! Coffee on coffee burners are hot!), people will invest in technologies just to help minimize a lawsuit (hence, Napster).

Do they have Liability, for real? Well, if a college knows that a student, or students, are doing an illegal activity, and if they have the potential to make it much harder (as in, blocking sites, restricting IP addresses, etc.) and choose not to, I could easily see them being seen by an American jury as at least somewhat liable.

Much of that would be fixed if judges would simply throw out the brain-dead cases...

It's not that simple. If there is even a threat of a lawsuit, people will settle out of court. It's cheaper to do that. Judges hardly are involved anymore.

I think it's the settling out of court which perpetuates these issues.. Would you really create a frivolous lawsuit if you knew you might lose and have to pay your lawyer's fees? Probably not. But if that same lawyer can get you $100,000 minus 65% lawyer fees, you'd take it, right?