I happen to believe that using Napster is indefensible stealing that enjoys unprecedented popularity due to the fledgling nature of the Internet. But regardless of that opinion, I am shocked at the potential deal between Napster and BMG.
In a nutshell, you could continue using Napster (at least for BMG releases) for $4.95 per month.
I can’t believe that BMG could agree to this. In a month, one could probably download 100 albums quite easily. And the value of this is to be $4.95? They must be ready to write annual checks to artists with values like 2 cents. Except perhaps top 40 stars, who presumably could reap 100’s of dollars from this. I haven’t done any serious math on this. But even if we imagine an on-line music delivery system where the user cost could be slashed to say, 10% of CD prices, that would be $200 for those 100 albums.
Perhaps I shouldn’t be surprised at BMG, since they have a bad reputation for artist relations. Some artists won’t allow their work to be included in the BMG music club (and others), because it squeezes their income to virtually nothing while BMG makes a killing.
Not sure what you intend the Great Debate to be, here, but on BMG:
They have been consistently virulent in their opposition to cyber abuse. This seemingly gamekeeper to poacher turnaround is, IMHO, the only practical approach. Fact is, the genie is out of the bottle – you can’t un-invent the technology and you can’t count on all the world’s different jurisdictions towing the legal line so you have to find ways to make it work for you.
Another example of the way the Net is fundamentally changing accepted business practices.
As a musician, I guess I’m worried that a future lack of funding will undermine the ability of artists to be just that. Certainly, we could do without the corporate ‘star system’ and it’s many over-rated, overpaid players. And I love the idea of grass-roots independant music production and distribution. But there is also a huge swath of great artists who basically ‘survive’ or make livings comparable to any working people. Enough that they can be full-time professionals and create some of the wonderful muisic so many of us love. The majority of artists are in this category.
Is it be that technology enables a meltdown of our values? I mean, surely we don’t expect the labour and skill-intensive service of music production to be free? I don’t buy the idea that ‘the people have spoken’ by the mass behaviour of stealing. Even as I think this through I fear I must be a total dreamer, but it doesn’t alter the facts.
Maybe I’ll be left with the last resort of anybody whose income dries up … please, spare some change? Please pay for music you care about
The Napster deal is, like anything else, a compromise. There are a whole lot of issues, from technical to philosophical, raised by the press release about the Napster-BMG deal. But as to their motives why, I understand completely.
Napster- Wants profit, wants to stay in business in the face of a probable loss in court.
BMG- Wants to cash in on what it sees as a huge potential revenue base, knows that digital music is here to stay, and knows that RIAA’s efforts at securing it are doomed to failure. Also knows that Napster boosts CD sales in general, and that links to CDNow from Napster will help even more.
What has to happen, IMO, to make this get off the ground:
It has to be easy for the user. If it’s clunky, full of restrictions, or unreliable, people will turn elsewhere. There are, after all, plenty of places on the net to get free music. If they want people to pay, then they have to offer great service and convenience at a very nominal fee.
It must remain a flat membership fee. Per-use subscription or streaming content versus downloadable content will cause the consumer to look elsewhere.
To essentially remain peer-to-peer, Napster will have to bring the rest of the Music companies on board, or devise a way to block all but officially approved transfers. Seagrams held out against mp3.com when all the other companies settled. If they do so again, Napster will have the exact same lawsuit to face that they are battling now. Plus, consumers do not want a crippled catalogue, where they cannot find music they want simply due to the vagaries of who might publish it.
I like Napster as it is now, and I will use it if I have to pay a fee, so long as they are able to fulfill the above requirements. If not, there are other places to turn.
The number of users has increased dramatically as a result of the recent media attention. Because of this, the service offered by Napster is shoddy at best. The Napster servers are responding very slowly when one is lucky enough to get a stable connection at all. If the overload issues are not addressed in short order, Napster will lose out to other utilities that can offer more consistent service. Should that happen, the discussion of Napster’s pay for service plan will be moot. I do hope that investors will realize the good folks at Napster can’t even handle their current load before money is lost on developing a payment scheme that would obviously be way beyond the abilities of the current tech staff.
I like Napster. I’d gladly pay a lot more than $5 per month, provided the service actually worked. Unfortunately, the tech department at Napster seems to require a thorough staffing overhaul. That’s terribly unfortunate for an organization that prides itself on technical innovation.
