Goodbye 'Napster' -- Hello 'Newtella'

[jimmygates]

If Napster actually had all those MP3's on their servers then I wouldn't mind paying $4.95 a month for service. Now since all the MP3's are not on their servers and on OUR harddrives, I don't see why I would pay $4.95. Why would I pay NAPSTER $4.95 month when I'm getting the file from someone else's harddrive? I can maybe understand if they charge you a one time fee for NAPSTER software but I feel charging $4.95 a month is absurd. Given it's not that much a month but that's like paying CUTEFTP $4.95 every month since I download files from my friends computer.


my $.02

-Jimbo

 

[silent tone]

I saw the press release this morning on that horrid POS CNBC. They were talking about charging a monthly fee, and linking napster to music e-commerce sites. This seem to have come about because of BMG's parent company sort of broke ranks with the lawsuits against napster and struck this alliance with them. I guess BMG thought they could make a lot of money out of this.

30 million * $5 * 12 months/year + increased CD sales = mega Monster Media Moguls!

Hmm. I'm just a little sceptical.