POLL: Would You Pay $4.95/Month for Napster???

[MC]

SURE! as long as unlimited download

 

[Zilldian]

Good SKOORB, you can get ripped off then!


Edit; How is letting people download music from my computer stealing?
(You don't have to explain, no matter how you put it, it's a far stretch from reality):Q

 

[Angrymarshmello]

You people bitch and moan about $5 a month. Do you guys realize how much $$ you blow on everyday items anyway? $5 a month is one big mac value meal super sized. It's not going to kill you to actually start paying for music you downloaded before illegally

 

[NFS4]

Hell, I'd pay it. No biggy

 

[StageLeft]

Zilldian

I am saying that you are young. I'm right aren't I?

Lets change your quote a bit How is letting people download music from my computer stealing? -> How is letting people download games from my computer stealing?

Its piracy. If trading software is wrong how is trading music not the same?

When you grow up you'll realize that paying for something you willingly use that somebody else produced is not called being ripped off.

radingbitch is right - nobody here can spare $5/month? Come on now, I bet you spend that on a couple beer at the bar.

 

[Soybomb]

You guys are forgetting this $5 a month fee would require some login/password setups. Those will be traded, record companys will complain....etc

 

[whateverdude]

I dont think i'd pay for it. I dont dl mp3's enough to justify the expense.

 

[Ranger X]

This will further complicate the issues surrounding Napster. It should be kept free.

 

[Angrymarshmello]

They could set it up to where each password/user name is matched up to a certain 1 (or 2, if for example they login from more than one place) ip - that way if it doesn't match unauthorized users can't get on.

Like stated above, you guys probably spend 4x daily on food than what Napster would charge per month. (I know I do) And some of you spend, what, $40 a month on cable and you whine and moan about something that is a service like cable but costs 1/8 as much?

 

[whateverdude]

I don't think it's really a bad deal, I would just rather have the cd. if I paid 5 x 12 mos. = $60 a year. thats about how much I spend on cd's in a year. I'd rather have that.

now, if every single person in this country would boycott buying cd's for 3 months, I bet the record companies would listen then about the high prices of cd's. then maybe the prices would come down.

 

[Double Trouble]

The amount is small, but the principle remains: I should no more pay to download MP3's than I should pay for recording off the radio or TV. I will not, under any circumstances, contribute money to the MPAA or RIAA so they can work harder at infringing on individual freedom. If all avenues for getting MP3's and the like dry up (they won't), I will simply listen to my own collection and the radio.

 

[FrogDog]

I'd pay for it. But I have a feeling a lot of people wouldn't. And the reason Napster is so good is that there are so many people and so many MP3s online at one time.

So yeah I'd pay for it. But this plan might not work so well for Napster...

 

[Imported]

If Napster starts paying $5 a month, I don't think there would be as many people on as there is now. I can see what you're saying Skoorb and when you put it like that, I'd have to agree with you.

 

[StageLeft]

What frogog reiterated from below is perfectly right. Because of THAT I would not pay for Napster - but that is the only reason - because it would lose many people - like the people in this thread who somehow think they are too good to pay a measly $5/month. Like I said it should only go to the artists.

tagej Why do you use napster? Because its better than radio or TV. You can download full, high quality albums and songs, that is why its better.

Its really quite simple from a principle point of view. I would have no problem paying $5/month for unlimited music. Its a small fee for all the enjoyment I get out of napster. I'm not saying it would work (because of those who would not pay and then leave napster), and I would only want the money to go to the artists - but from a principle point of view its good.

 

[JellyBaby]

Music swapping is fine provided it's a true one-for-one swap: e.g. I give you album A, you give me album B. With napster, people simply build a collection of music without sacraficing theirs. You can argue interpretation but you're stealing unless the tunes aren't copyrighted.

I'd rather buy direct from the band/musician, even if it's still in CD format. I'm with tagej: screw the mpaa and riaa. Most of us want to reward the musicians, not steal from them. It's only a matter of time before something workable is delivered. My wish is that the mpaa/riaa is not part of the product at all.

 

[StageLeft]

What jelly baby said. Far too many successful artists have had to file for bankruptcy because of the RIAA - I mean WTF TLC had to go bankrupt? Sh*t...somebody had their claws way too far into that group.

 

[Pretender]

I wouldn't pay the RIAA or Napster a damn cent. Why, so the RIAA execs can get an extra mansion on an island somewhere while artists are still getting d!cked out of money. And the plan, if it could be called one, rests on the assumption that people will be willing to pay $5 to share their own music.
Ways this will fail:
1) The general public, the main users of Napster, becomes resourceful enough to learn how to go to web and ftp sites, irc channels, etc to find their own mp3s.
2) The general public starts using other peer-to-peer programs (Gnutella, etc)
3) If people realize that most 'good' music either doesn't come out anymore, or comes out less often than once every 3 months (avg price of a cd = approx. $15)
Ways it could succeed:
1) If all mp3 sites are shut down, all irc channels that distribute mp3s, blank cdr prices are increased (to slow down the ability of distributing music), everyone decides to be nice and allow sharing, regardless of the fact that downloaders will now be wasting their precious time on napster, which they'll be paying for.

 

[goog40]

Way to shoot themselves in the foot. People don't want to pay to let other people steal their bandwidth. Napster by itself is nothing, its the people on napster who make it great.

Question: would you still be able to use the non-Napster servers(from napigator) to get stuff without paying the monthly fee?

 

[Gorgonzola]

no way would i waste my money on that! there is plenty of other ways to get the mp3s you are looking for. the only thing i use napster for is finding rare tracks, usually unreleased live recordings.

 

[VisionsUCI]

nope... no way would i pay for napster!

 

[Double Trouble]

Skoorb: <<Why do you use napster? Because its better than radio or TV. You can download full, high quality albums and songs, that is why ts better.>>

No argument on that from me, I would gladly pay a fee to Napster for the services they provide. I just refuse to pay any fees to the RIAA and the MPAA -- and right now it looks like the fees would go through Napster to them (through the labels of course). No thanks.

 

[mosdef]

hell no, i could definately find a free alternative. napster isn't the only solution.

-mosdef

 

[Celstar]

Never would I pay. There's many other options availible out there besides napster. I'm sure once napster starts charging money, the migration to other free services will be quick.

 

[SqUiRm]

Ok heres whut i say...
step 1. Find the nearest tree
step 2. Find a nice branch and break it off
step 3. Find the head dude of napster and hit him 17 times in the head
step 4. Laugh in his face

Napster pisses me off now... i dont get who would want 2 pay with all the other sites and programs out there?!?! STUPID KIDS !

 

[compuwiz1]

To be able to pick and download a couple songs I like from the artists, as opposed to buying the other 10 crappy songs on the cd, absolutely would pay $4.95 per month.