• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Should I get Napster?

A

archcommus

Diamond Member
My school has a deal with Napster to offer students yearly subscriptions for only $20. This allows me to download as many songs as I want, however they can't be burned or put on an MP3 player, and if I ever stop paying for the subscription, all the music stops working.

So, worth it or not?
 
Originally posted by: Mo0o
hell no
Click to expand...
Why not? Any song I want anytime for only $1.67 a month? But if I end up really liking my collection, it sort of forces me to pay the fee forever so I never lose it all.
 
Originally posted by: archcommus
Originally posted by: Mo0o
hell no
Click to expand...
Why not? Any song I want anytime for only $1.67 a month? But if I end up really liking my collection, it sort of forces me to pay the fee forever so I never lose it all.
Click to expand...

then do it...why ask?
 
Originally posted by: PHiuR
Originally posted by: archcommus
Originally posted by: Mo0o
hell no
Click to expand...
Why not? Any song I want anytime for only $1.67 a month? But if I end up really liking my collection, it sort of forces me to pay the fee forever so I never lose it all.
Click to expand...

then do it...why ask?
Click to expand...
Because of what I mentioned. I like to keep music because even once you get tired of it it's always good to listen to again later. I may become dependent on my collection and then it sucks me in to paying forever.

And I'm interested why'd people say no.

 
Quality sucks a whole lot, but if that isn't a big deal to you (i.e. you can't notice) then it's a great value. iTunes is actually my favorite for quality, and is about equal to music match (they don't have a great selection though). Yahoo music looked like a great deal, but it's quality is comparable to napster's (bad). I'm using a Klipsch Promedia Ultra system as well as Sennheiser HD-600 headphones. Cymbals in particular sound nasty with Napster and Yahoo. I wish iTunes had a monthly-fee service, I would definitely buy that even if it was $15/mo simply for the fantastic selection and the ability to manage a library with iTunes.
 
Originally posted by: Jpark
I'd go for yahoo unlimited for $5 a month
Click to expand...

Yahoo unlimited is starting to blow. They don't have a lot of songs, and you can't upload to a portable for $5 a month. It's 12 now.
 
Originally posted by: remagavon
Quality sucks a whole lot, but if that isn't a big deal to you (i.e. you can't notice) then it's a great value. iTunes is actually my favorite for quality, and is about equal to music match (they don't have a great selection though). Yahoo music looked like a great deal, but it's quality is comparable to napster's (bad). I'm using a Klipsch Promedia Ultra system as well as Sennheiser HD-600 headphones. Cymbals in particular sound nasty with Napster and Yahoo. I wish iTunes had a monthly-fee service, I would definitely buy that even if it was $15/mo simply for the fantastic selection and the ability to manage a library with iTunes.
Click to expand...
I am using a Klipsch ProMedia 5.1 set, as well, so you think I'd be dissatsified with the quality?

But really, $1.67/month? That's so cheap!

 
Buy music, but then be forced to pay a montly fee, or lose that music forever? Anyone that signs up for this needs their heads examined.
 
Originally posted by: archcommus
Originally posted by: remagavon
Quality sucks a whole lot, but if that isn't a big deal to you (i.e. you can't notice) then it's a great value. iTunes is actually my favorite for quality, and is about equal to music match (they don't have a great selection though). Yahoo music looked like a great deal, but it's quality is comparable to napster's (bad). I'm using a Klipsch Promedia Ultra system as well as Sennheiser HD-600 headphones. Cymbals in particular sound nasty with Napster and Yahoo. I wish iTunes had a monthly-fee service, I would definitely buy that even if it was $15/mo simply for the fantastic selection and the ability to manage a library with iTunes.
Click to expand...
I am using a Klipsch ProMedia 5.1 set, as well, so you think I'd be dissatsified with the quality?

But really, $1.67/month? That's so cheap!
Click to expand...

Honestly, most people don't mind. The best advice I can give you is to go for their free trial, and see if you like it. I'm very picky and almost impossible to please. I downloaded MP3s at 320kbps back when I had dial up becuase of the same cymbal issues and it's been a problem for me since compressed music started entering the picture, heh. But it depends on everything from your preferences, your hearing ability, the software used, to the type of music that you listen to. Give it a go and see if you like it, it won't hurt. All of the major services have great interfaces and aren't very bloated. Even musicmatch was pretty damn good for the 2 weeks or so that I used it (in 2004).
 
Originally posted by: ScottSwingleComputers
Buy music, but then be forced to pay a montly fee, or lose that music forever? Anyone that signs up for this needs their heads examined.
Click to expand...

$20 a year is not a lot of money for music. If the quality isn't a problem for someone, there's almost no reason not to go with a service like this. But many here will simply preach allofmp3 as being the 'be-all-end-all'.

I actually have downloaded the same song in two formats FROM allofmp3 (back when it first came out and I didn't fully understand the legality of it), and from iTunes. The song encoded with a lossy codec, and a lossless codec, both from allofmp3, sounded worse than the iTunes AAC song bought from the iTunes store. Allofmp3's 'custom encoding' is a complete scam, at least on the song I was listening to. I also have the song on the produced legitmate CD, and it did sound better than both of course, but there was a *very* noticable quality disparity between the two aforementioned.

Not saying you're endorsing allofmp3, but I just thought I'd bring it up since a lot of people around these forums like them so much.
 
Originally posted by: ScottSwingleComputers
Buy music, but then be forced to pay a montly fee, or lose that music forever? Anyone that signs up for this needs their heads examined.
Click to expand...
You're not "buying" any music, it's just $1.67/month, that's it.
 
Originally posted by: ScottSwingleComputers
Buy music, but then be forced to pay a montly fee, or lose that music forever? Anyone that signs up for this needs their heads examined.
Click to expand...

AGREED!
Entertainment companies and others are WETTING themselves over the prospect of you the consumer NEVER owning the product they are selling but rather licensing the item FOREVER.
They continue to have their revenue stream while you are restricted in what you can do with the item. I see very little upside (there are some but I don't need those0 to renting your music entertainment especially when there are many other choices out there that you can use to actually own the music you pay for.
It is a free market but PLEASE, PLEASE don't help support this and make this renting music business model a profitable one for the entertainment companies.

Edit:
Originally posted by: archcommus
You're not "buying" any music, it's just $1.67/month, that's it.
Click to expand...

It's $1.67 a month/$20 per year ... until you graduate from college. What about all those files you have now. Whoops, gotta continue to pay a higher fee each month for the rest of whenever or if the company goes out of business - then what?
 
Originally posted by: chowderhead
Originally posted by: ScottSwingleComputers
Buy music, but then be forced to pay a montly fee, or lose that music forever? Anyone that signs up for this needs their heads examined.
Click to expand...

AGREED!
Entertainment companies and others are WETTING themselves over the prospect of you the consumer NEVER owning the product they are selling but rather licensing the item FOREVER.
They continue to have their revenue stream while you are restricted in what you can do with the item. I see very little upside (there are some but I don't need those0 to renting your music entertainment especially when there are many other choices out there that you can use to actually own the music you pay for.
It is a free market but PLEASE, PLEASE don't help support this and make this renting music business model a profitable one for the entertainment companies.

Edit:
Originally posted by: archcommus
You're not "buying" any music, it's just $1.67/month, that's it.
Click to expand...

It's $1.67 a month/$20 per year ... until you graduate from college. What about all those files you have now. Whoops, gotta continue to pay a higher fee each month for the rest of whenever or if the company goes out of business - then what?
Click to expand...

Spending $80 for the ability to listen to the music of your choice for 4 years of your life is not exactly a bad purchase. The consumer wins by being able to do this at a highly discounted rate, and the provider wins by thusly (in theory) preventing a college student from violating copyright laws by illegally downloading music, by providing an easy and accessible medium to do so at an affordable rate.
 
Originally posted by: Einstein Element
I think this is fvcking ridiculous. Have fun with renting your music.
Click to expand...

Instead of watching cable or satelite, do you buy seasons sets of all of your favorite shows? Are you paying for cell phone service without having anything tangable to show for it if you cancel that service (useless cellphone), are you paying for internet access with similar functionality?

I simply don't understand the logic to these posts, especially given the pricing context that he outlined in the OP.
 
Wow, a lot of pirates bashing legal music rental in here.

It's $1.67 a month, less than a grande mocha at Starbucks and 1/100 the cost of Comcast with all the movie channels. 1/20 the cost of a typical cell phone plan. About the cost of renting 1 movie or 1/10 the cost of Netflix.

Quality is actually pretty good, they used to offer 128 kbps WMA but now it's 192 kbps.

For those of us who don't steal all of our music, that's a great deal. If it saves you from buying 1 bad CD every 6 months you come out ahead.

Plus you can listen to unlimited full-length CDs legally on up to 3 PCs, so music you don't like enough to buy you can still hear as often as you want.

Napster + Amazon (or Half) is a great combination for people with ethics.
 
All you people saying never, how about backing it up with a reason? Dave made some great points.

Like I mentioned, my only reservation is I know that once I have it I will build a huge MP3 collection, and because I won't want to lose it, I'll basically get trapped into paying for it forever (which is $120/year out of college). And I could never listen to the songs I like in my car.
 
i got free napster w/free download and 99c burning thru school
I always stream the music, tho, and it all works fine and sounds good
the only "collection" is my library which lists the titles that I then stream whenever I want to listen to the song


I love it, use it everyday
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top