Don't Pay Multiple Times… Just Keep Paying For The Rest Of Your Life
from the he's-only-half-wrong dept
Napster’s president is getting some press this morning for pointing out how ridiculous it is that people have to buy the same music multiple times in order to have the same music for full songs and ringtones (which can be much more expensive for a 30 second clip than it costs to download the whole song). Of course, it’s pretty easy to make a very similar argument back against Napster’s model (which is obviously what he’s trying to promote) by saying it’s equally ridiculous that someone who’s spent thousands of dollars on downloading music could then find all that music completely gone should (a) Napster go out of business or (b) the user stop paying the monthly fees. In fact, some people would say that the Napster model is a lot worse. Instead of paying “multiple times” for the same song, Napster users are stuck paying for the same songs every month, for life.
Comments on “Don't Pay Multiple Times… Just Keep Paying For The Rest Of Your Life”
No Subject Given
The monthly subscription DRM model has no appeal. I’m not renting music, I’m buying it.
Napster is a service, not a product
I see no problem paying a reasonable monthly fee to have a 1.5 million song jukebox at my disposal, with the ability to load up any album or song at any time and listen to it, without any expectation that I can keep playing that music when I quit subscribing. The fee to do this is very reasonable. Personally, I find Napster to be an amazing service. I’m not buying the music, I’m paying a small monthly fee for the opportunity to listen to it during that month.
Re: Napster is a service, not a product
I agree. Having that huge library at my disposal is cool. If I feel like it I could listen to some music that I wouldn’t necessarily buy such as operas, jazz, and classical. The ability to explore and play virtually anything is very fun. Works great for me especially since Yahoo’s music service is $5 a month.
Re: Re: Artistic Expression Should Be Free For All
Period.
It’s ART and there’s a message from the creator to be shared with the world. The only person who should be profiting from this is the person who made it. And they can make plenty to live off of from concerts, merchandise sold, and plain ole friendly DONATIONS from the people who are TRUELY thankful for the gift that has been given to them.
This mainstream BS needs to stop and the “pretty” assholes that “make” it need to go away.
Re: Re: Re: Artistic Expression Should Be Free For All
Right, just like corn is food, and the only one who should make a profit from it is the person who grew it? Not the people who trucked it out from where it was grown, or the people who stored it and made it available for retail, so that you could actually eat it? In other words, you’re an idiot.
Re: Re: Re: Artistic Expression Should Be Free For All
Sure if a artist feels that way, there are plenty sites for them to post their material and express themselves. For those who enjoy compensation these music services “should” be opportunity for them to wrestle some of the control from the corporate beasts of old.
Re: Re: Re: Artistic Expression Should Be Free For All
I think that that statement is true, but it’s only coming true now (and will become more true as distribution methods progress). Back in the day, you had to pay for distribution and the cost of cds or tapes or records. Now you don’t have to–and now is the only time that I’d agree with the idea that the only person who should profit should be the artists themselves (although I do have to include the producers and such).
No Subject Given
Looks like the Napster MarComm dept has cronies scour the web and post positive comments. Sad.
Subscription choice not for everybody
The analogy that Mike makes is not apples to apples. With my Napster and Yahoo music subscription services at $20 a month for both I can listen to vast variety of music and new releases. I get to take and access my music from anywhere on the net. My Creative Zen is filled with new and old music from Classical, Zydeco, to Comedy and I play it everywhere car, home stereo, etc. A music subscription service has very little in common with a single, 30 second music clip that plays sporadically for 2-5 dollars per clip. It’s good that the market has a choice for those who wish to buy and those that don’t!
Re: Subscription choice not for everybody
The analogy that Mike makes is not apples to apples.
Wasn’t my analogy. It was the guy at Napster. I agree it’s quite different, but if HE’S going to use it to promote Napster, you gotta realize it can be used the other way as well.
The point isn’t to knock subscription services, but to knock the claim that subscription services are better than pay-per-download because you have to pay more than once for something.