More On Napster

[TTP]

More recentnews on the development between napster and record companies here:

http://www.cnn.com/2000/TECH/computing/11/02/music.reut/index.html

[RoadRunner]

Yeah. Looks like the days of music sharing on Napster are over. I know that there are still some alternative napster-like services around. I've never actually downloaded any music from the Internet, so this doesn't affect me much.

[TTP]

Yep there are others, Napster was just the most used...or most heard about anyway...software out there.
Like all other software it is crackable, so I don't think that this paying is going to last long...it might be enforced by the companies, but people will find a way around it.

[utah007]

That type of technology napster uses won't die anytime soon however. Peer-to-Peer is going to be around for a long time, its fast and it makes sense. The mp3 movement is huge, its reached critical mass and won't be stopped. It might be held off for awhile but they are fighting a losing battle.

[TTP]

I agree w/ the above mentioned. In the meantime, the archive has been growing rapidly...{angel}

[jamesglewisf]

Check out this article at The Standard (http://thestandard.com/article/display/0,1151,19933,00.html) about Napster. It's called "Sleeping With the Enemy."

[utah007]

Yeah I saw that article when it came off the wire. I think it makes alot of sense on BMG's part. Makes Napster look like a sellout and it will probably decrease the number of users. However if the monthly fee is around $5/month like they said then I find that very acceptable... One month and I could fill up a harddrive if I had a decent broadband connection. Not to mention being able to download from the reams of titles under BMG's name is a huge addition to the song list.

[TTP]

I would have no problem paying $5 a month...none at all...
Take X add Y devide by W multiply by T and well you still end up saving a whole bunch of movies.
A big hypothetical here...lets just say for $5 a month you can download anything and as much as you want. Lets just say I am able to download 100 songs in an hour...once again, "Big IF," here...
Now out of those 100 songs maybe 40 of them where actually on the same cd's...that leaves 60 different CDs you would have to buy to get those 100 songs...ridiculous when you think of one CD being $18...so in the long run you could save $1080 in just one hour...huh, yeah I think I could handle that...$32,400 a month roughly...
I'ld pay, don't quote me though, even $50 a month for that...who wouldn't.
Once again that is a big hypothetical...100 songs in an hour?? Wow!
I'll just say your harddrive gets full fast
Humm Di Dum...La di da...

[RoadRunner]

IMO, $5 a month is more than reasonable. I think the musicians/record companies should get something for their work.

[Adam]

Who hear thinks that record companies should just give napster a break. It not like they are directly putting the MP3s online. Its the members that commit the piracy. AND even if they do shutdown Napster its not gonna change people getting pirated MP3s, they will just use another network. I have over 120 MP3s on napster and i would hate to see them shut down.

[jamesglewisf]

I haven't done any online music, so I haven't really cared that much about it one way or the other.

[TTP]

I'm looking at over 4,000 "potential" songs online, but I do not allow them to be there.
I am very curious as to what is going to be done with this.

[CommunistPanda]

I'm not too fussed about Napster - it'll make it harder to find MP3's, but not much harder - there's a million places you can get them. And in some ways, MP3's can increase sales. Let me give an example. Up until this year, I was buying maybe one CD a year, if that. Now, even though I've got a rather large MP3 collection, I've bought a couple of CD's based on what I've heard on MP3. Indeed, I would not be buying the Lene Marlin CD I have ordered had it not been for MP3.