About this news article

Around the easter periode in 2004, Roxio will prolly ask for a chapter eleven

I'm curious how they plan to make this work - Who's going to pay to download files from someone else, where the files could be bad quality, incomplete, etc, or when the users can disconnect and leave people stuck with incomplete downloads? It sounds like it could include all the bad aspects Napster had, now with the privilege of paying for it. The only way to keep that from happening is to use some kind of DRM to keep the files intact, and that's going to lead us back to the same issues people have with iTunes and BuyMusic's structure. I'm not going to predict its failure ahead of time, but the initial info does not sound too promising.

I agree with having a pay for the tracks method, but i have to agree with the last statement, it sounds like it's going to have all the bad elements of Napster in it. For example, what if you want to download Kylie Minogue - Can't get you out of my head, and someone has renamed their file to Abs - Stop Sign. Then you end up with the wrong track, thats gonna cost you money. i don't know, i mite be going off in completely the wrong direction, but i'm not going to slate this Napster 2.0 before it even starts, we'll have to wait and see.

It will be Napster in name only not in spirit. Just a client plus DRM (probably Microsoft windows WMA crap)

It would probably work under two conditions: 1 - You can burn the tracks to Audio CD (like with iTunes) 2 - Tracks use any format other than Windows Media Format.

If you can burn music to CD-R(W)s, then it's possible to rip them off the recorded CD in MP3 format for portable digital audio players

To the two people who seem confused about Napster 2.0... cax6ton and andyhhhdx...

Why do you have any reason to believe you'd pay to download someone elses file? No where does it say this is pay for P2P of filesharing of anysort. It's a downloading program similar to iTunes, with the possibility of subscriptions as well. You'll download the complete high quality file directly from them.

Way to completely misunderstand the idea and create more confusion about a relatively decent business plan. They're making a few good steps.

Pay for P2P. They could call it, Pay 2 Pirate I suppose... Honestly you people are so quick to complain with absolutely no justification.
[edited by jab1981 on 28.07.2003 20:44]

oh and i just found out that bill gates is my father...okay guys gona setup a monster ISP for P2P users muhahahahhhhah!!!!!!!!!!!!!

excuse me Jab,but i am not complaining without justification. I think that it's a great idea, i look forward to it being introduced and hopefully we can all be moving forward. I am just pointing out that there COULD be possible flaws in the system.

I might pay if it's in lossless compression format and I can burn it to CD

Fat chance of that happening

Andy, I understand you're pointing out possible flaws. But they're completely without any logic. Why would a company unroll a program that charges for P2P, basically relying on the pirated material of it's customers. That's what you cax6ton have suggested.

The system has been compared to iTunes. Is iTunes P2P? No. You download directly from Apple. This is how Napster 2.0 will be setup. There will be no user system and it's a ridiculous idea to think they'd charge for such a system. I mean think about you... do you really think people would pay for a service that would require them to use their internet connection to send out songs to other users? I know if I was paying to download songs, I'm sure as hell not going to use my cable connection to help the company send out songs I purchased to other users. That's basically what you assumed. That the company would force it's customers to upload songs to other users. It simply doesn't work that way. There's no reason to believe it would and it's just trying awfully hard to pick out a flaw that not only doesn't exist, but is actually so far from anything in reality it's just silly.

Why are so many people negative on this issue. First people complain that they purchase a CD and only a few songs are really good and the rest suck. A few months back, people on here said they would rather pay 99 cents per song that they liked instead of purchasing an entire CD.

The songs will be hosted on a server that Roxio owns and it just may do them a ton of business. I for one wouldn't mind paying a few bucks for a few songs as long as they also sell hard to find albums and albums that are no longer in print.

Who says you can't burn to a CD? When have you ever downloaded a song that you couldn't burn to a CD? With all the conversion tools out there today and all the hacks that people come up with, you won't have that problem.

Or, you can continue to complain since some of you would rather do that than see what the future holds.

TarBaby: You dont seem to see the big picture here, sure most people on this board can find the hacks to be able to burn the music they download off a pay site to a CD, but most NORMAL people cant. And yes, the current crappy pay system uses DRM (which means it wont allow you to burn the music file to a CD), only what the "copyright" holder wishes you to be able to (the copyright holder is the RIAA, they dont want you to be able to do anything with em). Furthermore, a decent amount of artists are dropping out of the onlines sales format, because "Only a few songs are being downloaded, and they are losing money on the others" or some garbage like that. Either way, untill the RIAA gets a clue and just lets people download MP3s without any kind of rights management built in, and tells the artists to stfu and put their stuff back on, the current online system will fail...

for jab1981: when you ask "Why do you have any reason to believe you'd pay to download someone elses file?"

Because Kazaa and other P2P networks originally went on record long ago saying that they would be interested in creating a subscriber structure that would have compensated the labels and artists. Not surprisingly, the idea was rejected. With the Napster name being used again, a lot of people will make some initial assumptions about the service based on what Napster 1.0 was.

" No where does it say this is pay for P2P of filesharing of anysort. It's a downloading program similar to iTunes, with the possibility of subscriptions as well. You'll download the complete high quality file directly from them."

No where does it say that it is NOT, nor does it say anything about "downloading the complete *high quality* file from them". My point was that it was very little useful info, and I accept the blame for not making that clearer in my post.

This is why I use the dastardly phrase "sounds like" and make use of the word "could" and ended by saying "I'm not going to predict its failure ahead of time". I didn't mean to come off as being overly critical of the planned service, but I remain skeptical and that won't change until their service goes live.

"Honestly you people are so quick to complain with absolutely no justification."

Having spent money at iTunes and at BuyMusic.com and being rewarded with nothing but bad quality files and constant DRM inconvenience, I would say that my money and I had plenty of justification for complaint. I told both companies what my issues were and what I would rather have (and pay for), and until then I would be getting music the same old way--from the used CD store and the occasional eBay bargain.

All I got to say is: What a bunch of morons - who cares about the Napster brand name - it's long dead and burried and I dont see anyone caring whether this was called napster or: LunchTimeNap.

Everyone had heard of napster and everyone also heard how they were closed down. If they're going to spend a fortune pushing it and advertising it then they could do that under ANY name - why associated themselves with napster and the legal problems it had.

To StrongBad: If most of the NORMAL people cannot find the cracks or hacks to burn the music to their CDs, then they will also be the people that purchase new Dells with DRM technology and won't really care. All they will care about is getting a few songs that they ling for a few bucks. When their 'more enlightened' friends come over, then they will teach them how to crack this or hack that and then they will be doing the same as you and I. WE ALL started at teh same place as 'NORMAL' people did, and then we learned more.

On a different note, DRM WILL ALLOW you to burn to a CD provided you have the proper encryption in the file(s) that tell your PC that you are indeed the owner of the file(s). Maybe you should read a little further about DRM or work for Intel like I do and then you'll know what you can and cannot do with DRM.