Will YOU pay for Napster?

[Pretender]

No, napster has been dead to me. Morpheus owns now, more than Napster ever did.

 

[SupaDupaCheez]

Napster will never be what it was unless it receives complete cooperation from ALL record companies (which will probably never happen). IF it does happen, you can count on paying at LEAST $10/month for RESTRICTED access and $20/month for 'slightly less restrictive' service. Remember, they will also track what and when you download in order to raise prices accordingly. I'm sure that many 'napster' releases will be 'held back' until after the B&M releases have hit certain sales goals.

One VERY IMPORTANT thing that you have to realize is that the only thing that is holding Napster up is the 'anti-copying' issue. Right now Napster and the record companies are working (together and individually) on different ways to keep you from BURNING THESE FILES AND PLAYING THEM ON ANYTHING OTHER THAN YOUR COMPUTER!! Also, they are looking to limit the amount of times you can listen to these files. Now, I'm sure there will be hacks (as anything that is 'written' can be 'un-written' but the point is that you are PAYING for something that you won't have control over!

Personally, I haven't used Napster since the 'filtering' began. I have used AudioGnome and WinMX. Eventually we won't have a choice but to pay for these services but I refuse to pay Napster anything since they were too stupid (and greedy) to strike a decent deal while they still had some clout. I have to admit that Napster is by far the easiest to use and most dependable (or WAS) 'service' but I will hold out until I absolutely have to pay for it. I have purchased well over 1,000 CD's, 500 cassettes, and 100 music Videos/DVD's in my lifetime (not to mention over 110 concerts....I'm ONLY 30!!) and feel that I have been gouged from the very beginning. I don't feel one bit of remorse for 'stealing music' through Napster/AG/WinMX and the like.

I do not blame the Bands at all! I blame the record companies for poor moneymanagement (and price gouging) and greed. It's now time for the record companies to 'pay up' and deal with the mess that they created.

Just my two-and-a-half-cents.

****************PREPARE THE FLAME MACHINES!********************
*****I AM NOW GETTING INTO MY FLAME RETARDANT SUIT **********


SupaDupa(flame broiled)Cheez

 

[shifrbv]

I wouldn't pay for the Naptster service. Unfortunately, the record companies greed and collusion has led them to where they are now. Now, they'll be paying for it. It's going to hurt, but if they can't keep up with the technology, free markets are ruthless.

I use the gnutella networks. Any one of which can be used to download any types of files, not just music.

Who's next? How about those greedy Hollywood execs. Suggesting to up the prices of DVD's to $45-50. Yuk. Here we come, movies on demand in less than 25 minutes. Yes!!!

 

[Khameleon]

Another thing that no one has mentioned here is the fact that one of the models they are looking at involves streaming content. Story

I personally will not pay for something that I cannot keep. If Napster were to stick with MP3s and not attempt to restrict usage, they would be successful. The millions of users Napster once could claim would be far more likely to pay $120/yr if they were able to utilize the content any way they liked. The amount of money that would generate for the record companies and artists is more than enough to keep the industry going, particularly since many people still buy CDs even though they have gotten the MP3 for free. These attempts to control what people can do with their music are simply going to blow up in the industry's face, and eventually no one will be able to make money off of the technology.

 

[Prodigy^]

no, never. There will always be alternatives....I use Direct Connect now and it rocks search for it on download.com , it rules and finds all other files too if you want.

 

[cybertainment]

hell no, there are many other services out there and there will always be....one of my favorite is Morpheus www.musiccity.com

 

[somethingwitty]

I'll pay it if:

-Napster's servers host the songs
-Songs are released to the stores and to napster simultaneously
-Songs are at least 192kbps
-the songs are MINE after I pay for and download them: Feel free to monitor which songs are downloaded the most, but don't monitor how often I play them, copy them, etc-they are MINE after I pay for them!
-The service is offered at a reasonable fee: Well, here's napster's chance to prove they are an ISP-give us ISP pricing. $10/month, with a month free if I pre-pay for a year.

And, since I'm guessing that few if any of these conditions will be met, bye-bye napster.

one other thing-napster's brand name has been through the mud lately-in the event that the songs are NOT hosted on napster's servers, don't expect everyone to come running back-especially since many people will want to know how many songs are available before they committ.

 

[ukDave]

i agree with most of you guys. A flat rate fee for as much d/l as we want, unrestricted. I wouldn't mind paying for that. But for now, WinMX does me good.

 

[ace31216]

why would you pay?!!! There are so many other programs out there now that are free like audiogalaxy, aimster, netwella, napigator, IRC.... it goes on and on and its FREE!!!

 

[Biggs]

Nope sorry.

 

[aidan]

71214GB on morpheus as i post, i think that settles the argument for me

 

By the time napster and the record companies utalize a way to make money off of MP3s, the mp3 standard will be old and useless.

 

[aneurysm]

No way. I get all the MP3's I need at 192+ Kbps off IRC and misc. forms of Gnutella, mostly Bearshare. (tho I'll probably check out Morpheous soon)

In a matter of days, I've downloaded the new Sugar Ray album, new Blink 182 album, and Swordfish soundtrack, among others, all from IRC...in a matter of minutes. I could never get that kind of speed on Napster.

 

[AaronP]

I would pay like 20 a year ONLY if they had close to the same amount of usage they used to have. I mean, if you pay, and then the only people on teh database who pay are the other 50 suckers like you, then its a rip.

 

[Angrymarshmello]

It'll be more like $10-$20 a month. $20 a year wouldn't go over well with the record companies. I'd pay it because $10 a month is two meals at any fast food joint, or one at a "good" restaurant - you're not going to miss it much, and you'll get the music you want.

 

[aneurysm]

Wow, talk about a surprise. I download Morpheus, and it turns out to be EXACTLY the same as KaZaA. The main difference is, I CAN'T EVEN CONNECT TO MORPHEUS.

Hm. Guess I'll have to mess with it a bit..

 

[MrBond]

I don't think I'd subscribe on a regular basis. I would probably keep a list of songs I wanted, and every few months, buy a month to get them all. I'd definatly have to agree that the selection of songs has to be just as good, otherwise there's no way I'd pay. The one thing that makes Napster far superior to other file sharing serivces is its huge user base with many many obscure songs. Back when I first heard Sum41's "Fat Lip" back in december, I couldn't find it anywhere except napster. I listen to some strange music at times, and napster has been the only place where I could find it.

And don't even mention FTP sites. They're useless anymore. Ratio sites love to have uncapped upload, 3.0k/sec download anymore. And if they're not ratio, you have to sign up for some POS mailing list (or worse, a porn site) to get the username/password (which 2/5 times doesn't work). My red herring box is filling up with all their crap.

I've tried to get this "morpheous" program everyones talking about, but I can't find a reliable download site. Maybe it's the next best thing, I dunno.

Freeloaders beware though. If this napster thing DOES work, they're gonna go after EVERY other filesharing software they can. I mean, if you're selling something for $5, and your neighbor gives it away for free, and you lose the business...you're gonna be pissed. And Napster's gonna have some massive lawyers behind them...

I believe gueutella is safe (for now). It won't surprise me if AOL suddenly blocks access to the ports it uses on their DNS servers when PayNapster gets going. I really don't see anything stopping them from bullying the other large ISP's into doing the same thing. People will get around it, but it'll only be the tech savvy that figure it out. And the average joe is usually the guy that shares all his files....if he can't get onto gneutella, who's gonna have that file you want?

<Flame suit ON>

 

[aneurysm]

Haha, Morpheus is pretty much worthless. Sure, it's got big selection, but it's got all the things that hampered KaZaA too - slow-ass downloads of anything rare.

I guess people who are used to getting slow speeds will find it fine, but I prefer hitting 200+ k/s on most of my downloads

 

[Double Trouble]

No way am I contributing my $$ to the RIAA to help them screw me over, directly or indirectly. I'm not buying CD's, I'm not paying for Napster or any other service. I'll go to the concerts for the bands I like -- at least they get some money that way.

 

[slpaulson]

I'll stick with morpheus myself.

 

[GameQuoter]

<< I'll pay it if:

-Napster's servers host the songs
-Songs are released to the stores and to napster simultaneously
-Songs are at least 192kbps
-the songs are MINE after I pay for and download them: Feel free to monitor which songs are downloaded the most, but don't monitor how often I play them, copy them, etc-they are MINE after I pay for them!
-The service is offered at a reasonable fee: Well, here's napster's chance to prove they are an ISP-give us ISP pricing. $10/month, with a month free if I pre-pay for a year.

And, since I'm guessing that few if any of these conditions will be met, bye-bye napster.

one other thing-napster's brand name has been through the mud lately-in the event that the songs are NOT hosted on napster's servers, don't expect everyone to come running back-especially since many people will want to know how many songs are available before they committ. >>



This post says everything I was going to say, with only one difference: I want CD quality songs, not mp3's.

 

[prontospyder]

I would pay $20 per year....

 

[b0mbrman]

no. just out of principle

 

[bjc112]

oh yea..

 

[Generalen]

No ,no way I'm not paying for anything that isen't very important