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

[Compellor]

I won't pay it for several reasons:

1. Once the "subscription" method takes place, millions of current Napster users will go elsewhere for MP3's, which, in turn, will make the selection of music VERY narrow. Don't expect to find any hard to find one hit wonders or rare mixes once the deal goes through.

2. Since the deal was struck with BMG, it'll be just like their Music Service. They have an ok selection of music, but, it pales in comparison to what you can currently find on Napster. Many users with rare, forgotten songs on their computers will leave the service, making it even harder to find what I'm looking for.

3. Why should I pay for something that I offer free for others? I've encoded my own MP3's for others to listen to -- free of charge.

4. I pay a monthly fee to my ISP, so, why should I pay an additional amount for use of my OWN bandwidth?

5. The principal behind FILE SHARING is that it should remain FREE to anyone with similar tastes in music. If you buy a CD and let a friend or co-worker borrow it, should you charge them a fee for borrowing it?

What will eventually happen with Napster is that after you start paying the $4.95 a month fee, they will start charging you additional fees for downloading the music itself. The $4.95 fee is just a facade; it will eventually wind up as a full-pay service. The RIAA won't accept that measly amount as ROYALTY FEES. They will want the exact same amount in which you currently pay for CD's. The only thing that they might offer for free will be obscure, no name tracks from artists that nobody has ever heard of. I guarantee it will happen...just watch.

 

[Varborta]

They said they would lose 90% of the napster user which is crazy! I would pay but like every other month gotta be like 500meg at least.

 

[StageLeft]

tagej

I agree with that.

--

When I started this thread it was on the principle of the thing - I agree with paying Napster if they want to charge (because its a useful service) and I'd love the bands to see some money for the music I love.

Unfortunately I read the article on napster's site and it seems they are doing this wrong because they are teaming up directly with a big company (company that owns BMG). I suppose its hard to do it any other way but I doubt this deal has much interest in paying the artists - and I find it hard to argue against the belief that the RIAA and what not has far far too much influence in the industry. If a cd sells for $20 how much does the band get? Less than a buck - what the hell is up with that?

And unfortunately compeller is right - and even if a person doesn't agree with some of his points (I think i agree with them all) his first point is undeniable. Compelling even (little pun).

 

[BuckMaster]

NO WAY!

So lets see here. I let everyone suck on my cable Modem line and I get rewarded by paying Napster $4.95 a month?? I dont think so. Hell I'll go back to FTP and IRC before I pay $4.95! Once you let them start charging you by next year the price will be up to $9.99! Its like anything else the price will go up after time.

Better yet send me ONLY $1.99 and suck on Buckster's MP3's. Why pay napster when you can pay someone you know and trust!

 

[Imported]

RIAA is suck. :|

Overcharging on CDs, taking much more than half of what the artists make, etc..

 

[Spindler]

nope.

there's too many other programs out there that does the same thing for free still.

 

[prontospyder]

I would.

 

[Tonec]

Not a legal expert but if the RIAA wins in court and seeks monetary compensation for stealing copyrighted songs, won't people who paid 4.95 with their credit cards basically be admitting guilt and possibly be held liable

 

[Compellor]

Tonec:

No.

What WILL happen is that the majority of current users will leave the service once it becomes subscription based, subsequently weakening the huge music database. Then -- as already stated in the press release --BMG/Napster will allow "limited" downloads to subscribers of the new service: MP3's will have some sort of time limit on them, and you will have to pay an additional fee to get the complete, full length song(s) you want. For people that think you're still going to get unlimited downloads for $4.95 a month, think again. The RIAA will not agree to it, since it's not enough money to compensate for loses due to decreased CD sales. Napster -- as a file sharing service -- is doomed.

 

[ArMs]

No way in hell, besides, it's not like we can't just do it in IRC and stuff like that.

 

[VoodooExtreme]

BTW. How would they charge you? I mean I'm pretty sure all people don't want to give out their credit card number on the net.

 

[sd]

No way. Just spend a few more bucks, get the cd, and rip it the way ya want(ie 128, 160, or 192).

Personally, I was never a big fan. I hate how its almost impossible to get the entire cd ripped at the same rate.

ftp is the way to go.

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

No way!

 

[Pretender]

<< BTW. How would they charge you? I mean I'm pretty sure all people don't want to give out their credit card number on the net. >>

Of cource CC is always preferred for online transactions such as this, but for those who think that if they give out any info, weird stalker men in black trenchcoats will track them down and shoot them, most services which go from having been free to becoming pay-to-use ofter other methods, such as direct billing to a checking acct., or accepting money orders or checks mailed to them.