Napster: It's Back. Get Your Free Tracks

[Gyrene]

iTunes...works perfect with my iPod. 99cents isn't bad at all.

 

[guyver01]

Originally posted by: AngryPirate

Originally posted by: Tetsuo
j00 suck at teh screenshot taking

I know, it was a rush job

omg .. did you hand draw those screenshots in paint?

 

[Deeko]

I just downloaded a free track...128kbit...eww! Sorry, I supported the concept if they were quality files, but I need at least 192. It actually doesn't sound TOO bad for 128, but still yuck. And thanks to DRM, no it does not play in Winamp. Sweet!

 

[Staples]

What portable devise plays these things anyway? Will PocketPC 2002 Media Player play these files (I have an iPaq but I never use it)? Even though I do not have an iPod, I am thinking of getting one since I have already bought a few songs off iTunes.

 

[beer]

Originally posted by: So
IMO, $0.10 is about right for permission to download one song. Think how low overhead can be to transfer one song -- certainly once you recoup fixed costs of production a ten cent price point can yield a modest profit (assuming you cut all the fat in the distribution company). Considering production costs, I can see how $0.25 would be more reasonable for a new song, then after a few months, the price could be dropped.

I'm not even going to touch this one....

Even if the artist sells 20000 songs and makes 50% on the sale (which they don't, under the current model it's 15%), that's only 5 cents per song. 05 * 20000 = 1000. Which is about what a professonal can make in 2 weeks. So yea, that's not very much at all. You, sir, are an asshole, if you really think their time is worth that little.

 

[Hammer]

Originally posted by: guyver01

Originally posted by: AngryPirate

Originally posted by: Tetsuo
j00 suck at teh screenshot taking

I know, it was a rush job

omg .. did you hand draw those screenshots in paint?

its like he wiped his ass with the print out and scanned it

 

[Amorphus]

Originally posted by: Hammer

Originally posted by: guyver01

Originally posted by: AngryPirate

Originally posted by: Tetsuo
j00 suck at teh screenshot taking

I know, it was a rush job

omg .. did you hand draw those screenshots in paint?

its like he wiped his ass with the print out and scanned it

before the ink had dried, too.

speaking of which, :camera:

 

[johnjohn320]

Elliot Smith died!?

 

[StageLeft]

Nice screenshots It's like you compressed it into a 2X3 pixel picture, then expanded it then compressed it again to a 1X1, then there was data corruption, then you upped it to the current size.

 

[Ausm]

Probably has Spyware up the ars

Ausm

 

[Maverick]

Boo on the quality being 128k. If I'm paying for it it better be friggin 256kbps. Or better yet it should be losslike like ogg.

 

[beer]

Originally posted by: Shiva112
Boo on the quality being 128k. If I'm paying for it it better be friggin 256kbps. Or better yet it should be losslike like ogg.

Obviously you have no clue what you are talking about because ogg isn't lossless. quit talking out of your ass.

 

[So]

Originally posted by: Elemental007

Originally posted by: So
IMO, $0.10 is about right for permission to download one song. Think how low overhead can be to transfer one song -- certainly once you recoup fixed costs of production a ten cent price point can yield a modest profit (assuming you cut all the fat in the distribution company). Considering production costs, I can see how $0.25 would be more reasonable for a new song, then after a few months, the price could be dropped.

I'm not even going to touch this one....

Even if the artist sells 20000 songs and makes 50% on the sale (which they don't, under the current model it's 15%), that's only 5 cents per song. 05 * 20000 = 1000. Which is about what a professonal can make in 2 weeks. So yea, that's not very much at all. You, sir, are an asshole, if you really think their time is worth that little.

Which is why I am saying that the fat needs to be cut out of the operation. 50% probably would be the target. I was setting it up so the artist would get about .05 per song. Now, if a professional gets 1000 in two weeks, who says that the average musician, for five minutes of recorded sound (which, admittedly, probably is a few hours in the studio) should earn more than a professional gets for 80 hours of work? Remember that an artist can likely record more than one song every two weeks, and they also get proceeds from concerts. Being a musician doesn't need to automatically have to mean that you are exorbitantly rich, a modest upper middle class living seems within reason.

 

[beer]

Originally posted by: So


Which is why I am saying that the fat needs to be cut out of the operation. 50% probably would be the target. I was setting it up so the artist would get about .05 per song. Now, if a professional gets 1000 in two weeks, who says that the average musician, for five minutes of recorded sound (which, admittedly, probably is a few hours in the studio) should earn more than a professional gets for 80 hours of work? Remember that an artist can likely record more than one song every two weeks, and they also get proceeds from concerts. Being a musician doesn't need to automatically have to mean that you are exorbitantly rich, a modest upper middle class living seems within reason.

Do you really think it 'only takes a few hours' to write a song? Do you really think that planning + recording + rehersing + mastering + production + advertisements are insignificant?

By your logic, Tom Clancy's books should be $.50 because I can write a one page paper in ten minutes. Therefore, I can write a 500 page book in 5000 min, or 83 hours. Therefore, I can write a new book every two weeks.

 

[So]

Originally posted by: Elemental007

Originally posted by: So


Which is why I am saying that the fat needs to be cut out of the operation. 50% probably would be the target. I was setting it up so the artist would get about .05 per song. Now, if a professional gets 1000 in two weeks, who says that the average musician, for five minutes of recorded sound (which, admittedly, probably is a few hours in the studio) should earn more than a professional gets for 80 hours of work? Remember that an artist can likely record more than one song every two weeks, and they also get proceeds from concerts. Being a musician doesn't need to automatically have to mean that you are exorbitantly rich, a modest upper middle class living seems within reason.

Do you really think it 'only takes a few hours' to write a song? Do you really think that planning + recording + rehersing + mastering + production + advertisements are insignificant?

By your logic, Tom Clancy's books should be $.50 because I can write a one page paper in ten minutes. Therefore, I can write a 500 page book in 5000 min, or 83 hours. Therefore, I can write a new book every two weeks.

First, you must remember that production and advertising costs and time go out the window with an online distributuion method. Then, does one five minute song, take more than two weeks to make?

 

[isaacmacdonald]

Originally posted by: Elemental007

Originally posted by: So


Which is why I am saying that the fat needs to be cut out of the operation. 50% probably would be the target. I was setting it up so the artist would get about .05 per song. Now, if a professional gets 1000 in two weeks, who says that the average musician, for five minutes of recorded sound (which, admittedly, probably is a few hours in the studio) should earn more than a professional gets for 80 hours of work? Remember that an artist can likely record more than one song every two weeks, and they also get proceeds from concerts. Being a musician doesn't need to automatically have to mean that you are exorbitantly rich, a modest upper middle class living seems within reason.

Do you really think it 'only takes a few hours' to write a song? Do you really think that planning + recording + rehersing + mastering + production + advertisements are insignificant?

By your logic, Tom Clancy's books should be $.50 because I can write a one page paper in ten minutes. Therefore, I can write a 500 page book in 5000 min, or 83 hours. Therefore, I can write a new book every two weeks.

you can, but the problem is it will probably suck. Despite the formulaic nature of Clancy's writing or Britney's "music", there's a hell of a lot more time invested in making one song than this guy imagines. Also, you're thinking about the most popular stuff. Keep in mind that for every hit, there's a hundred duds that had just as much time invested in them.

 

[Krk3561]

Napster does have a $9.95 plan that has unlimited downloads. Its part of their premium plan.

For $10 a month you can download as many songs as you want.

The interface is pretty nice and extremely easy to use. Very well done I think.

 

[isaacmacdonald]

I'm too lazy to look, so is there a way I can burn these tracks onto cd so I can play them in my car stereo (reads CD MP3/WMA)?

 

[Krk3561]

yea, theres a built in burning feature that lets you burn an unlimited amount of times

 

[So]

Burn an unlimited number of times to unencrypted CD audio? I amy have to look into this then.

 

[Krk3561]

hmm, a loophole
/evilsmile

 

[So]

Yes...:evil:

 

[Eug]

Originally posted by: Krk3561
yea, theres a built in burning feature that lets you burn an unlimited amount of times

I think it's 5 times max for DRM'd WMA from Napster. (iTunes is 10 times.) Not that it matters though since once you've burned the CD you can just copy it.

 

[Crappopotamus]

i love stealing. wheeeeeeeee. make no excuses. i grew up with it, and im accustomed to it. and i live in canada. NO WORRIES. i pay for this music! they put a tax on blank cds!

 

[dawks]

Two points,

1) Ogg does have a lossless capability, but the file sizes are massive. Larger then that of 320kbit Lossy Ogg or MP3.

WMA also has lossless, but again, the file sizes are huge.

2) Like I said in the other thread, with Rhapsody, you only RENT the music. As soon as you stop paying the monthly fee for the service, you lose access to the music. That is unless you paid the additional fee, on top of downloading fee, to burn it to a CD. then your fine.