NEWS: Yet Another Reason To Go Ahead And Get that iPod

GEEK: Yet Another Reason To Go Ahead And Get that iPod

During the Super Bowl, Napster ran a series of ads which invited customers to "do the math", trying to prove that using their new service would be cheaper than downloading a similar number of songs from ITunes. But in a review in the Washington Post, reviewer Rob Pegoraro does the math for himself, and finds it's not the deal they promise.

Napster to Go uses the most restrictive copy protection of any of the services, only allowing songs you put in your library to be played on no more than 3 computers, or on a compatible MP3 player. It does not allow the songs to be burned to CD. The tracks are set to expire after a certain period of time, unless the player is connected to the service to extend the license. Relatively few MP3 players are on the market now that are fully compatable with the service, in any case, and if you have an older player made by one of the manufacturers Napster lists as compatable, sorry, you're out of luck; their drivers or firmware cannot be updated to work with this service, meaning you'd have to shell out another $300 or so for a new player. This comes at the same time that Apple introduces a new version of the IPod that costs $99.

In short, Steve Jobs doesn't have to lose any sleep over this.

I laugh at people who subscribe to these "services"

Let me give you a list.....
eMule
Limewire
Kazaa k++
mIRC
BitTorrent


I meen... come on....

If I subscribed through my iTunes to download the 5600 songs on my ipod....
I would owe well.... $5,600
And It will be a cold day in satans bunghole when I pay for something that I could easily add to the queue.

Thats my 2 cents

I'm just stopping by to let everyone know that Lain has never met me, OR my bunghole in person.

Isnt it about time then?

When VCRs were invented the studios couldn't understand them. "How are we going to get people to pay when they watch a movie?" they asked. "Maybe more than one person will watch at a time!" they said.

And yet, here we are, a gajillion years after and we still have to put up with people mangling stuff because of DRM.

Anybody stop to think that maybe napster has all those fees and restrictions due to the legal goings on with downloaded music? according to my reading, their company was targeted more than anyone else, almost used as an example to the others. In order for them to stop being harrassed by artists and lawyers, they had to restrict and put a price tag on what they offered.

300 CDs in 20 years? Pffft. Lightweight!

That was the original Napster. Some corporate music conglomerate bought the name and turned it into pay-per-scam

Piracy fucking rocks.

Im at school, and have a sweet upload speed, so I use AIM file sharing to share with "outsiders", but use i2hub and private FTPs for all my warez needs.

downloading 10,000 songs from itunes only costs $9,900 not $10,000 as the napster ad states.

in the past year or so, i have spent $42 at the itunes store. i had bought the cds that i spent the $42 on just to get those songs, i would have spent $345 (approx). at $15 a month with the napster service, i would have spent $180.

i think it's pretty clear to me who the winner here is. itunes rocks. renting music sucks.

ps: i have also bought cds and records during this time, cause for some things i actually want to have the artwork and/or something tangible (like vinyl). i wouldn't have downloaded these from any service, so they are irrelevant in the scope of this discussion.

[Edited on Feb 15, 2005 by cop_n_blow]

I knew there had to be a catch. You can't burn the songs on to cd?! That's half the fun.

edited to include: Sharing is caring.

[Edited on Feb 15, 2005 by franandzooey]

I agree mr. blow. I have so far purchased maybe $154 worth of songs from itunes in a 2 year stretch (maybe even longer). This would have been $360 on napster.

The majority of the songs I buy at itunes are songs I either have on vinyl and want to put in my ipod or songs I listened to 13 years ago and never wanted the whole album but just the song. For instance "far away so close" by U2. It's more economical but I do miss buying whold cd's and having a few so-so songs really grow on me.

Current Size of My Pirated Goods Folder:

63.6GB
Over 19,000 Files

You are truly a badass!!!

You know, for every artist who drives around in a Ferrari, there are thousands who are starving and actually could use the money.

Yeah, and things will eventually get to the point where no one will make albums anymore, and record companies will only release singles that they think will do well in the download market. That means we'll hear fewer artists actually expressing themselves, and more clone-songs that the labels think we'll buy because they sound just like the latest thing.

Buy fucking albums already.

Yeah, he's truly ruining it for the rest of us.

Yeah, but they don't get any money from CD sales (well, very little anyway) and could use the *exposure* much more.

Not really, the way things are going, record companies are only needed for the distribution avenues, which are quickly becoming obsolete through new technologies such as these. You no longer need a record company to hire an engineer for your music, you can do a passable job with a $200 home studio package (not great, but good enough for .mp3 qualify work). You'll no longer need a record company to provide a master, and press the CD's and ship them to the stores, you'll just upload your file up to the websites you want distributing it, and they can sell it for you immediately, or you can sell it on your own website.

Really, this stuff is helping the small artist much more than it is hurting them. It's the record company that's sweating.

Actually, one aspect of all these download services that is often overlooked is that truly small or local artists are usually not available via those services. Also, an artist friend told me he makes the least amount from his music if it is purchased through a venue like iTunes in pure digital format.

If I want one or two songs from a fairly mainstream and established artist, I may buy via iTunes, but anything more than one or two songs from one album means I might as well spend a few extra dollars and make sure the artist gets paid.

Oh, and arguments about exposure of dollars are stupid. Artists need both, but dollars buys food, hits on a download service don't.

As opposed to what?

And how do you do that? It's certainly not by buying it at the CD store... the artist normally get's a ridiculously small piece of that sale.

Exposure costs money, lot's and lot's of money. Getting it for free is money in their pocket, and leverage in their contracts.

Personally, I feel that the downloading of songs will encourage artists to make CD's that have more than one or two good songs and the rest being filler. At least, hose are the ones that I'm more likely to just download. I'm not going to pay the 18.95 that most CD stores are charging nowadays for a CD that I won't enjoy all the way through.

Word. K++ is the shit, and nothing comes close to Soulseek for finding rare underground hip hop.

I hate the Ipod obsession. I have a Rio that works just as well, cost me a hell of a lot less, and spares me random conversations with the ipod cult.

"And here we have Lars Ulrich. He was hoping to buy a shark tank bar, but now because you downloaded music he will have to wait awhile!" J/K

Stealing from nonbillable line...

lightweight

I concur.

[Edited on Feb 15, 2005 6:36PM]

helljeah.

damn skippy.