Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

New Napster Off To A Solid Start

Hemos posted more than 10 years ago | from the jumping-into-high-gear dept.

Music 593

Anonymous Superhero writes "From Wired magazine Napster 2.0 has a sleek design and makes exploring new music a pleasure. The most nagging problem? The confusing licensing issues. A review by Katie Dean." I haven't tried it yet - still using the iTunes store.

cancel ×

593 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

I'm using the iTunes shop (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7377776)

I think I'm not the first one to say this, but please, pretty please, stop licking Apple's ass, it's VERY FUCKING ANNOYING.

Fucking hell! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7377811)

I guess I WAS the first one!

Not the editors too... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7377785)

> I haven't tried it yet - still using the iTunes store.

Even the editors have joined the recent Mac-fanboy invasion. Soon, no article will be posted without reference to why Apple is better than <insert article topic here>.

I liked this place better when it was all Linux zealots. *sigh*

Science: Gencorp Releases Cure For AIDS Under GPL
Posted by Hemos in The Mysterious Future!

anonymous coward writes "Hey everyone, they finally found a cure for AIDS and were gracious enough to release it under the GPL. This will save millions of lives world wide!" It would have been better released under a BSD-style license, like Darwin.

ok... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7377786)

who the FUICK cares?

Re:ok... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7377808)

Wow, your fingers must be really fat.

Previous Review (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7377788)

Here is a link [slashdot.org] to a review of the new Napster that was previously featured on Slashdot.

Re:Previous Review (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7377821)

Outstanding troll post.

You sir are brilliant.

And, it's not even Troll Tuesday.

Please come back tomorrow and work your magic.

Ban Napster! (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7377794)

Ban MP3s!

Ban Music!

Ban the Internet!

Ban Electricity!

I haven't tried it yet, either (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7377795)

Still using piracy. Arrrr, matey.

Portability (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7377796)

What I want to know is if you can freely (and easily) move purchased MP3s from computer to computer as well as burning them to CD using any 3rd party software (iTunes req. their software I believe)

Re:Portability (5, Informative)

hethatishere (674234) | more than 10 years ago | (#7377824)

It doesn't use the common MP3 format. Instead it uses the more proprietary and stiflying WMA format. Which, in my experience has proven inferior to every other format available. (MP3, MP3Pro, Ogg, AAC, etc) Though, to it's credit it does have a wider range of device support than Apple's AAC, but it was a mistake to not go with MP3 which would have provided even greater support and better quality.

Re:Portability (1)

snyps (656162) | more than 10 years ago | (#7377868)

For 1 $ a song you can download them and burn them to disks, but you "cannot" transfer them between computers... But anything in standard cd format can be transfered wherever u want. What i want to know is can the songs downloaded by the monthy service be burned to disks.

Re:Portability (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7377890)

The answer is a big fat ... maybe.

Re:Portability (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7377936)

no, you can not.

Re:Portability (2, Informative)

wo1verin3 (473094) | more than 10 years ago | (#7377960)

>> For 1 $ a song you can download them and burn
>> them to disks, but you "cannot" transfer them
>> between computers...

Incorrect. You can sync songs between a maximum of 3 computers using the Sync/Restore option on the pulldown 'My Account' menu

>> What i want to know is can the songs
>> downloaded by the monthy service be burned to
>> disks.

Only if you use a stream ripper type program to rip them while playing to a standard mp3 (or other format) file. The Napster client itself does not allow you to burn songs downloaded as a part of the subscription.

i see.. (4, Funny)

fuckfuck101 (699067) | more than 10 years ago | (#7377798)


"I haven't tried it yet - still using the iTunes store. "

that somebody has an advertising deal?

Re:i see.. (-1)

Clippy (691243) | more than 10 years ago | (#7377914)

I'm sure that Timothy is masturbating up a storm over this!

monthyl liscence? (2, Redundant)

snyps (656162) | more than 10 years ago | (#7377806)

My main concern about the new napster service is that they do charge 1$ per song making it not much cheeper than a normal cd, and i have heard rumor that the monthly service does not allow cd burning if anyone knows if this is true please email me @ penguinpower_2@yahoo.com.

Re:monthyl liscence? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7377820)

Your mail box is about to get /.ed. Good work, genius.

Re:monthyl liscence? (1)

jandrese (485) | more than 10 years ago | (#7377897)

Why do you think that was his mailbox? That looks like a troll to fill someone else's mailbox to me.

Re:monthyl liscence? (5, Informative)

Llywelyn (531070) | more than 10 years ago | (#7377852)

http://www.napster.com/terms.html

If you are on their monthly service you keep the music only so long as you subscribe to their service and cannot burn it (or I think transfer it to a music player) without paying the additional charge.

It also reports how many times you've played each track to headquarters.

Re:monthyl liscence? (4, Funny)

Lussarn (105276) | more than 10 years ago | (#7377959)


It also reports how many times you've played each track to headquarters.


I can live without that. What do they want to know next? How often I take a shit.

Oh and iTunes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7377892)

.99 cents per song is just THAT MUCH cheaper. sheesh.

Re:Oh and iTunes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7377983)

$.25 a song and I'll join this anti-piracy party!

iTunes (5, Insightful)

CGP314 (672613) | more than 10 years ago | (#7377807)

I haven't tried it yet - still using the iTunes store.

No kidding. iTunes is great, but I don't use it for music - I use it for the audiobooks. These are not available by *ahem* cheaper means, so I love having iTunes for them.

Re:iTunes (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7377881)

These are not available by *ahem* cheaper means

*ahem* *cough* *HOTLINE* *CARRACHO* *KDX* *cough* *VARIOUS DEDICATED SERVERS*

Excuse me there. Please ignore that outburst. I am glad to see, citizen, that you are choosing to take the high road and pay for your audio-book purchases in a legal, moral way. Anyhow, even were such things available by the "cheaper means" of which you speak, surely it would be a great hassle and inconvenience to actually obtain anything. Carry on.

Re:iTunes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7377932)

Are you kidding?

I can find thousands of mp3'd audiobooks on kazaa and various IRC fserves any time. People have been doing this for a few years now, along with OCR'd paper versions.

Re:iTunes (3, Informative)

Rude Turnip (49495) | more than 10 years ago | (#7377974)

The best part about buying audiobooks on iTunes is that when you go to burn a particularly large audiobook to CD, iTunes will automatically span the audiobook across multiple CDs, if need be. btw, "Benjamin Franklin, Citizen" was worth the $7.95 (and 2 blank CDRs :)!

Re:iTunes (4, Interesting)

mblase (200735) | more than 10 years ago | (#7378020)

As near as I can tell, Napster 2.0 is a store first and a jukebox second. Its jukebox tools are sorely lacking compared to iTunes, and its biggest omission is that it doesn't even include a CD ripper.

iTunes outclasses Napster in almost every way that counts. It would be more fair to compare iTunes to the new and improved MusicMatch [musicmatch.com] , which added online music shopping about a month before iTunes for Windows was released, and compare Napster to BuyMusic [buymusic.com] instead.

Yummy (4, Insightful)

DaneelGiskard (222145) | more than 10 years ago | (#7377812)

At $10 a month, the Napster premium service allows customers to stream an unlimited number of songs and listen to Napster's preprogrammed radio stations. For as long as you shell out the fee, you can download tracks and listen to them either online or offline. Stop paying the fee, and you don't get to keep the downloads.

Sounds like a nice way to get all the stuff you like for 10 bucks a month - given that you have the right tools to get the audio stream into a mp3 - can't be too difficult.

Of course, this would be illegal, so I won't try it (no, really!) ;-)

Re:Yummy (1)

DaneelGiskard (222145) | more than 10 years ago | (#7377833)

Said that, I wonder what the quality of the streaming songs is...aka kbps...

Re:Yummy (1)

OverlordQ (264228) | more than 10 years ago | (#7377848)

Well depending on what it streams at. Even if I would do what you mentioned, it better stream at 192+ before I'd even try that, waste of time imo.

Re:Yummy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7377857)

and what tools would those be?
where can I get the tools for free?
Phil Hendrie is just $6 a month and much more interesting.

Re:Yummy (1)

DaneelGiskard (222145) | more than 10 years ago | (#7377957)

At worst a cable connecting your audio out port and your audio in port ;-)))

Just joking, I'm sure it's not that easy (or is it?). Can't be much more difficult.

Re:Yummy (1)

mr. methane (593577) | more than 10 years ago | (#7377972)

It's always good to see innovation, but.. I would keep my wallet in my pocket. If I have to think about the licensing, it's too complicated. Divx, anyone?

I like itunes for one reason: It doesn't make me feel like I'm being spammed to death. (just don't tell any of my geek friends that I'm using an ipod. They'll revoke my black belt in grep-fu)

Rock solid start... (3, Informative)

angst7 (62954) | more than 10 years ago | (#7377813)

Uh huh...

We're sorry, Napster is not currently compatible with your operating system.

Napster is currently compatible with Windows XP/2000.
Windows 95, Windows NT and the Mac OS are not supported at this time.

If you are planning on using Napster on this computer, the service will not be compatible and you should discontinue registration. If you will use Napster on a different computer, with a compatible operating system, please continue.


No thanks, buddy...

Re:Rock solid start... (1)

DrEldarion (114072) | more than 10 years ago | (#7377835)

Windows only? Most likely just for now. iTunes started out as a Mac-only program. Give it time.

Re:Rock solid start... (1)

mirko (198274) | more than 10 years ago | (#7377858)

Windows 95, Windows NT and the Mac OS are not supported at this time.
Only available to DRM-aware Windows versions ?

Erm... Better keep on going to GNUArt [google.com]

Re:Rock solid start... (1)

bourne (539955) | more than 10 years ago | (#7377920)

Napster is not currently compatible with your operating system.

But the reviewer did such a careful job of testing on several XP machines!!!

Re:Rock solid start... (5, Funny)

angst7 (62954) | more than 10 years ago | (#7377988)

Seriously... the review is written like a 10th grade book report. "I could find song X, but I couldn't find song Y. And when I tried to play song Z, it played some weird song by Loverboy. I was like OMG!!1!"

bah.

Re:Rock solid start... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7378003)

Idiots... if you are still running Windows 98 its time to get Windows XP. Stop bitching and upgrade already, XP is the best Windows release since 3.11.

Re:Rock solid start... (1, Insightful)

NotAnotherReboot (262125) | more than 10 years ago | (#7378005)

Apple has iTunes, Napster trying to compete there would be a waste of money. Windows 2000/XP saturation in the client marketplace is very high, and it seems to me that more tech savvy people are going to be the ones using this service, meaning they are probably not running Windows 95/98/ME, NT, and probably not Microsoft Bob either.

You titled your post "Rock solid start," sarcastically, but I don't really see the problem with the percentage of the marketplace they can reach.

Re:Rock solid start... (1)

wo1verin3 (473094) | more than 10 years ago | (#7378006)

itunes is also only win2k/xp so not a huge difference.

The most nagging problem? (0, Redundant)

DrEldarion (114072) | more than 10 years ago | (#7377817)

I say the most nagging problem is those commercials they put out with the napster cat dancing around. So annoying. I'm sure part of Napster's new success is due to these, though.

Anyways, it's good to see that this is some REAL competition for iTunes. Hopefully we'll see a price war soon.

Re:The most nagging problem? (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7377931)

Anyways, it's good to see that this is some REAL competition for iTunes. Hopefully we'll see a price war soon.

You can't squeeze blood from a turnip there buddy.....there's no margin at all.

Re:The most nagging problem? Price war? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7377952)

Price war? How can there be a price war if the majority of the revenues (ie royalties) go to the same place?

The RIAA labels win BIG time - they get distribution, advertising, promotion and steady revenue through their middle distributors. iTMS, Napster or whoever will have to live on slim margins.

one answer (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7377819)

Kazaa lite ;^)

Re:one answer (3, Funny)

Llywelyn (531070) | more than 10 years ago | (#7377896)

Yep, because I like spending all day looking for 128 kbps encoded MP3s on an unreliable connection when half of which have been sabotaged by the label or encoded by a guy with his stereo on the opposite side of the room. :p

What, is that out yet? (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7377827)

When the Apple Music Store for Windows went live, half the xp users on the internet had downloaded iTunes within 24 hours, it was the most talked-about event on the internet for days, and Apple had almost immediate statistics showing they'd sold millions and millions of songs in the first weekend.

Where are Napster2's such statistics? If they're remaining silent on that, what does that say about how much of a "success" they are so far?

Now that Napster 2.0 is out... I mean, it's out already? The only way I knew was those ads on the Onion. But that made it seem like a "coming soon" thing. Heck, it's barely made a ripple. You'd think if it were worthwhile, it would get more press than the press they merely recieve because of their famous name.

So are all the people complaining that you can't run your iTunes Music Store purchases on more than 3 computers going to overlook the seemingly worse flaws in Napster2, or whine all the louder?

Re:What, is that out yet? (1)

Ours (596171) | more than 10 years ago | (#7377964)

"half the xp users"? Yes, because we all live in the USA don't we. Sound a bit exagerated. Still, I think I'll give it a try for the 30 second previews.

I'm going to try it (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7377828)

As soon as my lawyer finishes reviewing the licensing agreements and terms of use. It should only take about 5 days and cost me $10,000.

Jeez. It was so much easier in the old days. At least then it was obvious that you were breaking the law. Now you just don't know...

Money (5, Insightful)

CGP314 (672613) | more than 10 years ago | (#7377831)

For as long as you shell out the fee, you can download tracks and listen to them either online or offline. Stop paying the fee, and you don't get to keep the downloads.

Right there is why I don't think it will catch on. People don't like the idea of paying until the end of time for something they have bought. Also, what happens when Napster 2.0 goes out of business, do your downloaded songs dissapear as well?

Re:Money (0, Troll)

mumblestheclown (569987) | more than 10 years ago | (#7377875)

Right there is why I don't think it will catch on. People don't like the idea of paying until the end of time for something they have bought.

I've bought home gym equipment in the past. i have no trouble paying a gym a monthly fee for access to more equipment that i could reasonably store in my home.

Oh wait.. maybe i should have chosen an example that slashdotters could relate to..

Re:Money (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7377955)

"'Right there is why I don't think it will catch on. People don't like the idea of paying until the end of time for something they have bought.'

"I've bought home gym equipment in the past. i have no trouble paying a gym a monthly fee for access to more equipment that i could reasonably store in my home."

Yes, but when you pay your gym a monthly fee, you don't also have to buy each new piece of equipment you want to use while you're there.

Re:Money (1)

hawwy (235434) | more than 10 years ago | (#7378012)

yeah i thought that was kind of interesting too. but if you can burn them on cd you pretty much have the songs secured for life. but then again i guess you're breaching some sort of aggrement, and the reason you use services like napster and itunes is to own music legitimately.

About 6 months too late, unfortunately. (1, Interesting)

anaphora (680342) | more than 10 years ago | (#7377841)

I, for one, welcome our new kitty-cat-with-headphones overlords. In all seriousness though, I'll stick to kaz^H^H^HiTunes until Napster offers me something that my other service can't. Such is the problem with being second-in-line, everyone uses the first. That's why Windows is popular, that's why AOL is popular, that's why Napster WAS so popular, and that's why 45$/month porn sites are popular.

Black Box? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7377845)

A black box on the right side of the application displays the current playlist and album cover.

Black box? Looks like the reviewer was listening to Metallica [allmusic.com] or Spinal Tap [allmusic.com]

.

The RIAA are sure to going to stomp on it again... (0, Troll)

soluzar22 (219097) | more than 10 years ago | (#7377855)

I mean, if you download music without paying through the nose for it, the RIAA get PO-ed.
Simple equation. 'Complex licencing issues' my butt! They hate all file-share services. There will never be a P2P worth using, as long as the biggest powers in the world are still functioning under a capitalist economy based on greed. In my opinion, that's the bottom line. I prefer not to place myself in line to be sued. So I ignore all P2P services. The megacorps make life hard enough, what with wanting to ban all free software, and directly controll my PC, so why give 'em an opening to blast me by using these things. I mean P2P to the RIAA is like a red rag to a bull. Vive freedom! Down with corporations. but until that glorious day, I'll steer clear of P2P.

-- Soluzar

Re:The RIAA are sure to going to stomp on it again (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7377929)

If this discussion had anything to do with "P2P" (i.e., "pirate-to-pirate") then you might have a point.

It doesn't, though. Napster has nothing to do with "P2P."

Re:The RIAA are sure to going to stomp on it again (1)

soluzar22 (219097) | more than 10 years ago | (#7378013)

Well hey, I can see your point; do you see mine. On closer inspection, I can see a difference between Napster and oh, say KaZaA, for example, but I'm not entirely sure that the record companies see that difference. For the record, I'm not sure I find it a convincing difference myself. People are already talking about how to use Napster for purposes of piracy, are they not? In my view it's just another way of trying to get what you did not pay for, and while I do NOT make a value judgement about the rights and wrongs of that issue, the RIAA sure as hell do. Come on, don't tell me that you don't get where I'm coming from.

Napster, and the internet == The Great Satan to the RIAA, and that will never change, as far as I can see. Your views may differ, but surely you can see my point, even if you don't agree?

-- Soluzar

iTMS has already worked out the kinks... (5, Informative)

Chief Typist (110285) | more than 10 years ago | (#7377865)

From the article: I look forward to an even better digital music experience as the licensing hitches are resolved.

And that's the beauty of the Apple solution: all of the licensing hitches have already been worked out. Consumers want predictability, and iTunes is the only one that provides it now.

NAPSTER SUCKS (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7377866)



I mean, it really does suck. Bad.

PARENT NOT A TROLL. TRY IT. IT SUCKS. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7378014)



I've tried Napster, it totally fucking sucks. The artists page look like an advertisement from Spin Magazine. The music choice is limited to the Big 5. It's slow, unintuitive, and the radio stations suck.

iTunes, I'm afraid, is the cat's meow.

Doomed project (3, Interesting)

Kethinov (636034) | more than 10 years ago | (#7377871)

Seriously, Napster and all clones such as Itunes (we can debate who cloned who later) who are trying to sell music online are ultimately doomed to failure. P2P is the new radio; free music, and will always be considered so from here on out. No P2P service will ever be as successful as Kazaa or oldschool Napster until they realize that the lure of their product is its freedom. Pay for it though voluntary subscription (such as slashdot) and/or ads like cable television and be done with it. Music et al will never be as ridiculously profitable as it once was. The days when we pay per album and/or song have rapidly come to a close and I'll be damned if I ever see them come back.

Re:Doomed project (1)

KD5YPT (714783) | more than 10 years ago | (#7377954)

One major problem I see here. Some artists, almost all professional artists, depends on selling their work to feed themselves. If music were to be free, it's not just the artists, but musicians that performs the music will lose their job or have their pays cut. Sure, RIAA's actions are screwing themselves over. But we should not go to the extreme that music should be free. It is a difficult path to finding the right balance, but I believe sometime in the near future we could work something out that could benefit the artist and the consumers (not including the CEO and the big industries that steals the artist's money).

Of course, I'm an optimist, so this thing might go into a Dead Man's spiral.

Re:Doomed project (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7377958)

Itunes (we can debate who cloned who later) who are trying to sell music online are ultimately doomed to failure.

Oh horseshit. They've sold 15 million songs that "anyone can get for free" (my ass) in only a few months.

Music et al will never be as ridiculously profitable as it once was.

Not only will it be ridiculously profitable, but it will be of higher quality and available to more people for a lower cost. Entertainment in 20 years is going to be 20 times the size of the market now.

Nice troll.

Ease of use (5, Informative)

reptilicus (605251) | more than 10 years ago | (#7377876)

The big problem with Napster (and BuyMusic for that matter), and the reason iTunes surpasses both of them: Ease of Use. I don't want to have to read the fine print on every single song. I just want to find it and grab it:

"Despite its flexibility, the service can also be confusing. Some songs in the Napster library can only be streamed, while others are only available for a 99-cent download, even if you're paying for the streaming service. Which songs fall into each category isn't clearly spelled out. Some users are liable to think they are signing up for unlimited access to the Napster library, only to find out that some tracks must be purchased separately."

" I was listening to Lucinda Williams' album Car Wheels on a Gravel Road when I ran into a glitch. I could hear all of "Lake Charles," but only 30 seconds of "I Lost It," a song from the same album. It turns out "I Lost It" was only available if I opted for the a la carte feature. I either had to buy the track for 99 cents or be content hearing just 30 seconds of it. What a pain."

Licenses (5, Interesting)

dolo666 (195584) | more than 10 years ago | (#7377878)

The Napster kinks in licenses and stuff like that are only a sign of how the record industry still hasn't embraced this age of electronic media.

You'd think they'd be all into it, with the cost reduction for distrobution.

I would think I'm not the only person in the world who clicks OK whenever I see a contract or license. To me, that long-winded drivel has no hold on my time. If Napster is saying they will require my first born child as future payment for the services, then they'll have to come through me to get it, contract or not.

But that's not really what this is about. It's about record execs who haven't got the slightest idea how to integrate properly into a culture.

We are the culture... The people.

They (RIAA et al) are too busy trying to tell us that they are the culture, they are in control, when in fact that very notion of them having to tell people of this, is their undoing.

Each artist or group might have certain wishes to deal with Napster. Napster likely had to make concessions to appease the powers that be.

It's a side effect of a greater disorder. But does it make Napster bad? Prolly not.

Re:Licenses (4, Insightful)

pauljlucas (529435) | more than 10 years ago | (#7377992)

The Napster kinks in licenses and stuff like that are only a sign of how the record industry still hasn't embraced this age of electronic media.
But the record industry has with the iTunes music store: it has uniform licensing for every song in the store from the big-5 labels. Why the industry hasn't done the same with Napster isn't clear. Maybe Steve took the label execs out to better places for lunch or something.

Different classes of songs hidden until you join (5, Informative)

Smack (977) | more than 10 years ago | (#7377879)

That is my biggest complaint. I decided to sign up for their premium service for a few months, since I was quitting eMusic anyway so the net cost was negligible. Once you join, many songs' icons change from "Buy song" to "Buy only", which means you can't stream or download them without paying $1. OTOH, there is a bunch of stuff that is streaming only. (For example, the Pet Sounds Sessions by the Beach Boys.) I don't think this is made sufficiently clear before you sign up, although I'm sure they would argue it's in the fine print somewhere.

Also, just some more info on the tracks you can download on the $9.99 unlimited plan. If you view the file info in Windows Media Player, they are tagged in the DRM as "no transfer to portable", "no burn to CD", and with 6 week play expirations. Presumably that is renewed automatically if you keep up the subscription.

Re:Different classes of songs hidden until you joi (4, Interesting)

back_pages (600753) | more than 10 years ago | (#7377937)

This is precisely the complaint I heard from an early adopter. He said that he believed he was paying $10 for the total, complete, awesome, unrestricted unlimited plan only to find out that the music that he DID want to get either cost more, wouldn't stream, or was only a stream (I forget which he preferred, but either way the stuff he wanted was not available in his preferred format.)

So I quote an enthusiastic customer commenting on Napster 2.0's payment scheme, "F### THAT." He called his credit card and issued a charge-back on the service for false advertising.

Recording software? (1)

herrvinny (698679) | more than 10 years ago | (#7377882)

About a month ago, /. posted a story similar to this, and someone recommended software that, in essence, becomes the sound subsystem, and all audio went through it, so you could record even "protected" content. Anyone have the link to the software?

Re:Recording software? (1)

EnglishTim (9662) | more than 10 years ago | (#7378016)

The problem with this is that you end up having to recompress the music, which results in a drop in quality (Unless you're not compressing, and burning to CD, for example).

Sorry, I don't have a link to the software you're looking for, though :-(

What happens if you just select 'wave' as the recording source in Windows?

Re:Recording software? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7378022)

In Mac OS X you can do this with a program called Audio Hijack ( http:/www.rogueamoeba.com ) I'm not sure what the windows equivalent is, but by doing this you'd be breaking the agreement and might as well save yourself the trouble and download off any other p2p since the whole legal music thing is out the window.

"Samsung Napster Player" (2, Informative)

DaneelGiskard (222145) | more than 10 years ago | (#7377886)

I did not test Napster's answer to the iPod, the Samsung Napster player. I only checked out the music service.

Here are a few:
click [typepad.com]
click [image-acquire.com]
click [twincities.com]

Still not as good as the free stuff. (1)

Omni Magnus (645067) | more than 10 years ago | (#7377888)

When will these companies realize, that in order for paid downloads to catch on, they must provide a BETTER service than the free stuff. This is still more restrictive than any of the P2P. If I download a song from P2P, I can do whatever the !@#% I want with it. Although this is much better than some of the other services, they still have a long way to go. Also, the library needs to be about 10 times that size.

Re:Still not as good as the free stuff. (1)

andcarne (657052) | more than 10 years ago | (#7378015)

Don't you ever hate it when you are trying to get a song off, say Kazaa. And either nobody has it, or nobody stays on long enough. Maybe its low, crappy, quality, or the download speed is really bad. You don't get these problems with paid services. I think they have shown that they will be at least partially succecssful by the use they have gotten already.

Major bummer about streaming... (4, Insightful)

carlcmc (322350) | more than 10 years ago | (#7377891)

While I understand the reason, I would find it extremely disappointing to hear a bunch of songs streamed and then stop subscribing and realize all that money had been in vain....

I haven't downloaded music probably for over a year. Perhaps it says something about me, but as I age (28) I like less and less of whats out there and don't even have a desire to download it for free let alone for $.99.

The only time any more that I will download music probably is for a song I remember from my teens or some classical music.

I suppose the radio feature is useful (to get you hooked on new music and to get you to buy new songs).

Re:Major bummer about streaming... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7377979)

You == becoming old fart

Go get drunk and live it up before you realize your life is nothing but a mortage and Ikea furniture!

Bah Napster! (3, Funny)

dark-br (473115) | more than 10 years ago | (#7377894)

2.0 little.
2.0 late.
2.0 bad.

Re:Bah Napster! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7377999)

E se se calasse em vez de fazer comentarios estupidos?

Head to head comparison (5, Informative)

nucal (561664) | more than 10 years ago | (#7377895)

Here is a recent review from John Fried [philly.com] who compared the different sites head-to-head [philly.com]

Reasons not to use Napster (3, Insightful)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 10 years ago | (#7377903)

And the number one reason is:
"Stop paying the fee, and you don't get to keep the downloads."
So, is it cheaper to pay $120 a year as a perpetual licensing fee or just go buy some CDs?

Missing Songs.... (1)

ChozSun (49528) | more than 10 years ago | (#7377912)

... Napster sucks because it's missing quite a few songs from even common groups like Led Zeppelin.

My biggest complaint about any music store such as Napster, MusicMatch and iTunes is why are the id3 tags locked down? So if some jackass decides to label The Who's "We Won't Be Fooled Again" as Classic Rock, I am stuck with that labeling? Gawd forbid they fuck around and misspell the artist, album or song title.

Re:Missing Songs.... (1)

Schart (587279) | more than 10 years ago | (#7377998)

Can't speak for the Windows version of iTunes, but iTunes happily (and easily) lets me edit the ID3 tags of the tracks I have bought from the iTunes Music Store on OS X. The only exception I know of is the Audible.com content, but those tags are (arguably) less important.

Re:Missing Songs.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7378004)

Um, so what is "We Won't Be Fooled Again"?

Why does this make story (0, Flamebait)

onyxruby (118189) | more than 10 years ago | (#7377913)

Why does this make story here on slashdot? Napster is dead and buried. This is nothing more than a company that bought the name and turned napster in RIAA's wet dream. It's a pay for service that is DRM saturated, and thus no more noteworthy than any other DRM saturated service. Napster is dead, nothing more to say here.

Napster 2 vs. iTunes vs. Rhapsody (4, Informative)

groberts65 (261083) | more than 10 years ago | (#7377917)

Here's my review, which I attempted to post as a new topic but got denied....

Below is a short review I have done of the three legit online music services I have tried - Rhapsody, iTunes, and Napster 2.

Rhapsody [listen.com]

As a s/w developer who sits in front of his computer all day, I'm a big fan of the online streaming services and a huge Rhapsody advocate. I consider it the best $10 that I spend a month and use it for at least 6 hrs a day M-F. I've also ripped my entire CD collection to a FireWire drive connected to a fileserver I have setup in my home network. In total, I have about 7000 mp3s
ripped at 192kbps VBR which take up about 37GB of storage.

But Rhapsody has it's shortcomings.....

- no portable support

- no way to play local media files

- purchased music can be burned to a CD once and then it's gone

- no one click album purchase

I live with most of these by simply ripping the CDs I burn from Rhapsody which allows me to mix them with my local tracks and upload them to my Samsung YP-30SH MP3 player. I have also purchased the licensed version of RealOne (w/o all the subscription crap) to manage my local files. I'm not a big fan of Real the company but RealOne has great ID3 and file management capabilities. I've tried all of the others (e.g. MusicMatch) and I simply can't find another media player which does what RealOne does for me. I should mention that most of these capabilities came from RealJukebox which has then merged with RealPlayer to form RealOne. Unfortunately, it is now bordering on considerable bloatware and I fear that since Real has purchased listen.com (i.e. Rhapsody) they are planning on merging the Rhapsopdy client into it which will likely result in both clients becoming less usable.

iTunes [apple.com]

When iTunes for Windows launched, I checked it out from a curiosity perspective. The U/I is very well done as one would expect from Apple and the purchase process is seamless. Apple has made it very easy for people to spend money :) I also like the notion that my purchased music are simply DRM-protected local files and I can play/manage them along with my local files.

But iTunes has it's shortcomings......

- iPod-only support

- no streaming service

- AAC format which has very limited industry support

I have seen so many messages blasting M$oft and WMA and DRM, and the same people giving accolades to Apple and iTunes. But from my perspective, iTunes/AAC is 10x more proprietary than WMA and Apple has not been anywhere near as forthcoming with developers as M$oft has been over WMA. There are at least a dozen MP3 players on the market supporting WMA and only one supporting AAC. It seems that since Apple is "cool", it's OK for them to be signicantly more proprietary than the "uncool" Microsoft.

As far as DRM is concerned - yes, it's a pain, but get over it - it's not going away.

Napster 2 [napster.com]

So given my views on Rhapsody and iTunes, I was eagerly awaiting the launch of Napster 2. The advance information available seemed to indicate that it had everything I like about Rhapsody and more (e.g. portable support). I had decided that if it actually was what it's PR made it out to be, I'd bite the bullet and get a WMA-capable MP3 player.

But boy was I wrong......

I downloaded the Napster 2 client first thing yesterday morning and immediately felt a sense of deja-iTunes-vu. They seemed to have attempted to replicate the iTunes interface in almost every way but in a way that seems much more "scattered-brained". At this time, I'd like to say a word about these services' U/Is. Perhaps it's my old way of thinking, but I really like Rhapsody's album and artist-orientated U/I. Everything is laid out very logically and navigation among artists, albums, genres, related artists,
etc. is very natural. I find the iTunes and Napster UIs to be very track-orientated and as such they seem to be cluttered and don't have a very natural "flow" to them, especially Napster.

Then I attempted to import my local tracks into Napster's library and discovered the real "gotcha". The Napster 2 client will not allow you to import tracks which are located on a network drive! You are only presented with local drives and there is no way to select a remote share. They even filter out network drives which you map to a local drive letter. So this means that, like Rhaposody, I still need to use another media player for my local files. Whats ironic about this, is that Napster allows me to specify a network share in which to store my downloaded music. I emailed their customer support about this limitation and the answer I got back was
basically ... "yep, you can't do that".

Then I looked into their "Premium" streaming service and discovered two more serious shortcomings. Unlike Rhapsody, which streams at 128kbps, Napster streams at 96kbps, and they only stream the content that they have available
for sale. This is an important distinction... Rhapsopdy has alot more content available for on demand listening than just that which is available for sale. This make the Napster catalog alot more limited than Rhapsody's for streaming purposes.

Conclusion

==========

Neither of these services is ideal and your specific needs will determine which one, or two, you are likely to use....

- if, like me, the streaming capabilities are important, you can do no wrong with Rhapsody - it truly is a great streaming service (and I promise I am not a Real stockholder). However, you'll still have to use another media player to play/manage your local files and interface with a portable.

- if you don't need streaming, own an iPod or don't care about portable support, and simply want to buy and burn, iTunes is for you

- the only reason I can think to use Napster 2 is if you have a WMA/DRM capable MP3 player. But even then, I think that burning and then ripping a CD from Rhapsody or iTunes to Mp3s is worth the extra effort.

Having said all that however.... look at all the choices we now have and this industry is just now getting started ! (insert obligatory reply about not using anything which doesn't support Ogg)

Napster - Alive but barely. (1)

Deathlizard (115856) | more than 10 years ago | (#7377919)

Although I like the idea of having yet another music store available to me, I kinda wish this was done differently however.

For one thing. I like P2P. I like it because I dont have to listen to what Roxio wants me to hear. I listen to what the fans want to hear. Now that this napster is no longer P2P it seems to me that this would limit what Music I can find on the service to what the RIAA is pimping in the stores currently rather than anything under the sun like Napster used to be.

All I want it a P2P app thats Legal and allowes me to do whatever the hell I please with the music I download. Maybe it's time to RIAA stop suing everyone under the sun and just selling some sort of monthly fee "P2P Licence" that allows me to download whatever I want, however I want as long as I download and upload it with a valid licence. Either that or a P2P app that allows me to download whatever I want for $1 and anything that is uploaded from me gives me $0.10 for the bandwidth used.

OMFG I'm a Millionaire! (4, Funny)

bigwavejas (678602) | more than 10 years ago | (#7377923)

U mean every mp3 I have is worth $1?!!

CHA-CHING , I'm a millionaire. Y-E-S!

/salute

F the RIAA

I bet I can get at least .50cents/ song at the Flea Market.

Re:OMFG I'm a Millionaire! (1)

smack_attack (171144) | more than 10 years ago | (#7378021)

What's the specs on that MP3 tera-server? ;)

PCMag review of Napster (4, Informative)

bartash (93498) | more than 10 years ago | (#7377927)

PC Mag likes Napster too [pcmag.com] . But the user comments (at the bottom of the page) seem to disagree. PC Mag also has reviews of ITunes [pcmag.com] and MusicMatch [pcmag.com] .

Standart /. comment... (4, Funny)

dark-br (473115) | more than 10 years ago | (#7377939)

I won't even consider it until it's ($CURRENT_PRICE/2) and until the files are ($CURRENT_BITRATE*2). And until it's in (!($CURRENT_MEDIA_FORMAT)). Plus it only is going to have bands $BAD_BANDS[1]..$BAD_BANDS[134], which I don't listen too anyway.

And they should have thought of this ($DATE-(rand())) ago.

It's Napster... (1)

tuxlove (316502) | more than 10 years ago | (#7377941)

...in name only.

What do they offer that iTunes doesn't (5, Insightful)

GreenCrackBaby (203293) | more than 10 years ago | (#7377942)

An industry leader has already emerged in the digital music business -- Apple's iTunes. They've set the bar and I'm not sure how that bar can be raised.

Does this new Napster service offer anything better than iTunes? The article claims more songs are available using Napster, but then goes on to say that some are only available as streamed audio, and then only to those who pay the $10/month. Of the 500,000 songs, how many are truly available as downloadable tracks?

iTunes, without requiring any purchases, comes with a few hundred radio stations, all of them free. Napster radio stations are only available to those who pay the $10/month (according to the article).

So where's the innovation? The industry is struggling to catch up to Apple, and Apple has a huge lead. I can't think of any feature I'd like to see in iTunes that isn't already there, and what is there is done really well.

So, uh... what do they have? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7377947)

So what's their selection? Yes, I realize you have to download the iTunes program to browse the iTMS, but I can run iTMS on this computer and check. I can't run napster on this computer.

Anyone else notice that there is VERY little information on this site? If you look around a lot, you can find the statistic that they have "500,000 songs" and that this includes "Eminem and Miles Davis". 500,000 songs, how'd they do that so quickly? iTunes Music Store only has 400,000 and it's been up months. Hm.

They don't even give any PRICING INFORMATION if you can't download the program. Wow.

sign up (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7377980)

The thing I don't like about it is you have to create an account just to browse the store ... ? It's not like I can steal anything, but good grief, why do they need my digits just to look around? I hope that doesn't become the stardard anytime soon.

Couple of things (1)

kcornia (152859) | more than 10 years ago | (#7377990)

First off, doesn't MusicMatch stream all kinds of content FOR FREE? I listen to the alternative radio station they have all day at work and it rocks.

As far as iTunes goes, I'm a little less than enthused about the music selection. It's probably just luck, but the first two bands I searched for (Radiohead and Smashing Pumpkins) were nowhere to be found. I'm hopeful that within a few months more and more deals will be worked out to make more stuff available.

New Napster sounds like crap to me. I want to BUY my music, not RENT it. I have radio (and now MusicMatch) for stuff I just listen to occasionally.

Hmm. Question: (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7377991)

For as long as you shell out the fee, you can download tracks and listen to them either online or offline. Stop paying the fee, and you don't get to keep the downloads. ... Some songs in the Napster library can only be streamed, while others are only available for a 99-cent download, even if you're paying for the streaming service.

If you pay the 99 cents, can you keep that song forever?

What happens if napster's drm servers go down or whatever? Can you still listen to the music you've bought? What are the restrictions, can you move bought songs between computers like with iTMS?

A fair review?? (5, Interesting)

beefdart (520839) | more than 10 years ago | (#7378008)

You think Wired is a big fan of Napster2 because Napster and Roxio are both huge sponsers of the website as well as the mag?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>