Version: 2008

Comments on: Now at Napster: 6 million DRM-free MP3s

All four major labels and thousands of indies are represented in the store, but there's no trade program for customers who have a library of DRM-protected WMA files.

Add a Comment (Log in or register) (24 Comments)
  • prev
  • 1
  • next
by chillys95 May 19, 2008 10:32 PM PDT
apple has rested on their lead for too long and now other companies are out doing them. Competition is also good for the customer. And Amazon and Napster on giving Apple wat it deserves in this market-- competition. And us the consumer wat we have always deserved-- digital music wit out the music labels telling us how we can use it.
Reply to this comment
by AppleSuxLeo May 20, 2008 1:23 AM PDT
Yawn...Amazon is cheaper in many cases , 89 cents and many Amazon MP3s are 320 kbps.
But I`m for anything that hurts Apple.
BTW...any music worth "napstering" got NAPSTERED back in 1999-2000
Reply to this comment
by dribnif May 20, 2008 8:50 PM PDT
It sure did. Those were the days, huh?
by capiendo May 20, 2008 1:25 AM PDT
@chillys95 ...and i'll listen to Napster's music on my iPod :)
Reply to this comment
by RicD May 20, 2008 6:04 AM PDT
Hey AppleSuxLeo,
"...anything that hurts Apple", such a childish comment. If it hurts Apple, it will hurt MS, IBM, GM, Ford, plus many other companies. It will hurt thousands of folks such as employees, suppliers, car manufactures, manufacturing, music industry, families of the aforementioned, it becomes truly a domino effect that may well trickle down hurting you. Be careful what you wish for you may receive it. What you're saying is you want everyone to hurt. Very childish self centered.
Reply to this comment
by asilvera4 May 20, 2008 6:37 AM PDT
MP3's sound terrible at any bit-rate. I have absolutely no regard for any company or vendor, but I do want my music to sound as good as possible. Say what you will, iTunes Plus 256K AAC's sound nearer to CD quality than most any compressed files available anywhere.
Reply to this comment
by wilbou May 20, 2008 7:43 AM PDT
This is awsome but i also want to bring to light something tht no one ever says which is that the old musicmatch tracks i purchased dont work anymore and neither yahoo or rhapsody will help me out.
Reply to this comment
by AppleSuxLeo May 20, 2008 9:29 AM PDT
iTunes is/was a monopoly. Apple-lovers never see this. The monopoly is eroding as we speak thanks to Amazon. Thinking iTunes would control the music scene forever is foolish. Thanks to Amazon and their lack of DRM , better quality , and lower prices , Apple is starting to lose control and iPod sales are off also. Thank God their are alternatives to the greedy Jobs-run system.
Reply to this comment
by PunkCityKid2 May 20, 2008 10:29 AM PDT
Wow that's awesome...I can't wait to go home and DL some albums for free and not worry about any of these problems.
Reply to this comment
by da_bombdiggidy May 20, 2008 12:14 PM PDT
I have never used Napster since it went legit. I have long used iTunes and yet to find a reason to switch. My biggest curiosity would come in true standard pricing and ability to purchase any individual song without being required to purchase the album. But I would like to change the subject for a moment. This is an interesting evolution in the breakdown of piracy and distribution. However, there remains one place in this industry that remains tightly controlled and over regulated. I am still annoyed that as a media producer there is no way to use recorded content without having to jump through huge hurdles and costs. As independent productions are increasing, this seems like a grey area that deserves attention. I'm tired of stories of the RIAA suing anything that even remotely sounds like something similar. We need one place to purchase music licenses with catalogs of what is available. There should be multi artist recordings. There should be fair pricing schemes for different distribution methods and quantities. There should be easy revenue sharing built in when needed.
Reply to this comment
by RicD May 20, 2008 2:21 PM PDT
Hay "AppleSuxLeo",
How is Apple greedy? The RIAA wants more than .99 cents a song Apple held the RIAA to .99 cents a song; where's the greed? It has been written in many journals that Apple doesn't make very much off each sale. The vast majority of the .99 goes to the RIAA.

What does the RIAA do with the windfall of Apple sales, not share it with the artists; the artists are operate under contract; paid so much for what they produce. Because of those contacts even if the RIAA reaped all the money in the world they are not under any obligation to share a penny more with the artists. So who's greedy? It's all a contractual business.

You want a raise you want more income, will you then work longer hours, more diligently, coming in earlier, etc.? If not why pay you more, D'oh. You want more income for doing the same amount of work. Hey, maybe you're the greedy one.

Apple doesn't have a monopoly, by definition a monopoly: "(economics) a market in which there are many buyers but only one seller". Many others along with Apple sell songs. It's that Apple provided the best marketing plan; is that what you don't like? Yes iPod sales may have slowed a bit, your point is? Zune hasn't sold much at all. Also look at the many MP3 players that have fallen by the wayside. Though some were good people didn't want them. Don't blame Apple.

Sadly you seem to relish in others misfortune.
Reply to this comment
by RoamingComedian May 20, 2008 4:15 PM PDT
Dude, get a grip. It's just a blog posting.
by john_zocco June 3, 2008 10:05 PM PDT
I completely agree with you!
by solitare_pax May 20, 2008 5:10 PM PDT
Don't feed the trolls. He's only living up to the handle "AppleSuxLeo" - which is vaguely vulgar. With Napster - nice to see they're trying to do it legal-like.
Reply to this comment
by zlguocius May 20, 2008 7:40 PM PDT
Napster's web-based store may be "compatible with every operating system", but it's not yet compatible with Safari. It asks me to download Firefox.

Pass.
Reply to this comment
by Spartan_458 May 21, 2008 5:38 PM PDT
@ asilvera4
There is very little difference between AAC and MP3. In my experience, they sound virtually the same. And I'm pretty sure that an MP3 at 320 kbps sounds better than AAC at 256 kbps. If you hate compression so much, just use WMA Lossless or any other Lossless format. Those sound just like a CD.
Reply to this comment
by Composer_1777 May 21, 2008 7:06 PM PDT
Thank god!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! FOR DRM FREE
Reply to this comment
by hughgwoody May 24, 2008 8:14 AM PDT
Until DRM free means FLAC / WMA Lossless or any other lossless format, You;ll find me at my local record shop or at CD Universe or Amazon buying CDs and ripping them to lossless.

I have ripped my entire CD collection to Apple Lossless for use in iTunes and moving to an iPod. I have never bought an online track in lossy format and never will.

That is the real key for online music sales.

Besides, NAPSTER SUCKS! I trialed them last summer on their subscription service. Their tags are inconsistent, a lot of them are in ALL CAPS, there are skips in their tracks. Seems like they ripped them with a P3 400 with crappy software.

It seems that Record companies have no stake in online distribution so they don't master the music specifically for online distribution and they don't manage the quality of the rip, the lossy formats are not responsible for bad rips.

The Record companies need to master the recordings for the medium, much like when they remaster old tapes to take advantage of lossless CD-Rate or SACD formats to get the best possible sound from the music.

Unitl they decide to specifically create for the online market. And ensure end-to-end quality of every aspect of the recording and packaging, much like they do with CDs and SACDs, then I may look again at online distribution.

See you at the local record store.....
Reply to this comment
by Lerianis May 24, 2008 4:20 PM PDT
I think you are joking when you say that there are 'skips' in the files on Napster. I've downloaded one or two in my day, and none of them had skips in them.
by Lerianis May 24, 2008 4:18 PM PDT
99 cents is still too expensive for something where you are not getting an actual hard copy and would have to back up your music onto your own discs. 79 cents or 59 cents would be a better deal.
If it is true that the vast majority of the .99 goes to the RIAA and it's member companies.... why is that? They are doing basically NOTHING to warrant getting that big of a share of the money.
Reply to this comment
by Composer_1777 May 24, 2008 4:52 PM PDT
AWESOME, Finally, No more communism type restrictions on music
Reply to this comment
by Rádi Pál May 25, 2008 9:34 AM PDT
My going Dear Editor You MP3 free downloading/ I'm You are fiend and HOME every. Thank you consulting you with him/love in pal.
Reply to this comment
by Rádi Pál May 25, 2008 9:37 AM PDT
My going Dear Editor You MP3 free downloading/ I'm You are fiend and HOME every. Thank you consulting you with him/love in pal.
Reply to this comment
by barbarbboatright July 16, 2008 10:35 PM PDT
I tried to download your program and couldn't but im am registered but how to i download my music on my mp3 player zunV.
please help
thank you,
Reply to this comment
(24 Comments)
  • prev
  • 1
  • next
advertisement

15 sites that went kaput in 2009

Web sites launch all the time, but they also shut their doors. We highlight 15 that bit the dust this year.

Top 10 news stories of the decade

Let the debate begin: Was the iPhone more important than iTunes? Was anything bigger than Google finding a great business model? CNET offers its list of the 10 most important stories of the '00s.

About News Blog

Recent posts on technology, trends, and more.

Add this feed to your online news reader

advertisement
advertisement