Bertelsmann has announced that is it looking to have it's subscription service for Napster up and running by early summer.

The announcement matches what most experts have been estimating for the company with regards to timing of the release of the subscription service molded from Napster.

While many consumers have shown their distaste for the idea of paying for a digital music file sharing service, Bertelsmann says that there are enough users willing to pay to make the switch a successful one.

The major questions still remain however. The question being if Bertelsmann will be able to convince the other major labels to sign on to the file sharing service?

The idea seems good enuff .. but I doubt it'll survive while other free p2p software exists ..

well as soon as Napster goes subscription, I'll be elsewhere.

Fuck Napster. Napster Inc. = Corporate cocksuckers. Music is free and we wont pay!

This sucks...what happened with the free internet? Isn't internet about sharing? I agree with RyanS, I'm gonna be elsewhere.

damnit... scour.... napster.... I'm gonna have a friggin embolism here!

when they do start the fee for using napster, i'll just switch on over to something else. i hardly use napster anymore anyway. you guys should try the alternatives now before napster even starts with the pay-for-service idea. that way, you know how to use something else.

[doobybrain]

The question is: is Bertelwhatever right? Are there enough people using Napster that will pay to continue using it rather than going elsewhere?

I think the answer is, no. Gnutella et al. will be picking up some serious usage soon.

a company that's seen zero revenue (not profit -- revenue) is going to finally make some money? how dare they!

You're an atrocity. Music isn't free...people play it for a living and you are stealing from them. You = Pathetic Freeloader.

Man, gnutella is going to be brought to its knees when everybody flocks to gnutella. I hope people work on it ahead of time before the rush comes in.

i dont recommend that everyone goes to gnutella. they should try out some of the clones or the other development apps.

btw, gnutella is super slow for me, thats why i dont use it too much. :/

[doobybrain]

i agree with you. as long as other fairly known peer to peer applications are still around, i dont think this business idea will make much money and profit from their idea. i'm guessing that most people will not pay for something if they know that they can get it for free somewhere else. just my thoughts on the situation...

[doobybrain]

i agree with skarth, damn this sucks


- p o x O 5 -

napster is filled with stupid stuff that nobody need. i don't think a lot of ppl are gonna stay with them.

Ok, to all the 13 year olds who think all music should be free, I will wait for you to get a clue. People spend their entire lives trying to learn how to make art with an instrument, and put their life into their work, and you would deprive them of any compensation? Ok think this way, if they dont get paid, they either have to get day jobs or they have to do a ton of concerts. Either way they have less time to make good music, and you stop listening. This isnt communism, and we shouldnt demand others hand over, especially if were unable to give back anything. As for whether napster can make it, think of it like this. Lets say 20 million of the 75 million or so users, alot less than half, sign on at 4.95 dollars a month. Thats 11.8 billion a year, with really low overhead. Advertising is almost nill, because of the controversy. As to those who say they are "corporate cocksuckers" how about this. Take away mommy and daddys job, because I doubt your working yourself, and we'll see how long you last around the house with no food, no electricity, and then soon after that no shelter. And gnutella wont do as well as napster because napster is alot easier to use, more support, and making 11.8 billion, theyll probably have alot better servers, etc. I think this idea is brilliant. People, 4.95 per month for UNLIMITED downloading. Napster hasnt been around so long that you guys forgot what its like paying up to 18 bucks for a cd, for only one song. Geez, lets celebrate that at a time when the economy is slowing more cash will be dumped in to the economy. Well, Im done with my diatribe

Nate
http://www.hotspots.cjb.net

* Of course* people will pay for Napster. Not everyone on the Web is like us lot... not everyone even knows about Gnutella etc.

PLUS, Napster has the scalability to cope with millions of users, whereas the others don't.

I DO, however, see the OpenNap servers etc as a threat. People will continue to use their old Napster applications on independent servers.

if artists really care about the fact that they're losing money, maybe they need to stop signing up with major labels. for every CD sold, they are lucky to get a dollar.

the smart ones create their own label, sell their CDs on-line, and keep the profits for themselves.

my point?

screw the whiners who want free music. screw the whiners who think their art is a commodity. and screw you for even reading this comment.

Well takeing napster away from me isn't a huge blow in the way I get music free over the internet. The other places I get my mp3's arer Hotline, Direct Connect, KaZaA, Tripnosis, and Bear Share... I am bound the song I want on any of those file sharing programs...
- L3Vi -

i am not 13 and i am an avid listener of all forms of music and i believe that napster as a subscription service wont work.

Do you realize since the advent of mp3s, CD sales have been rising 20% a year, that is after CD sales were dropping at a rate of 20% a year. The mp3 has not harmed CD sales, in fact it got people to try different music that they wouldn't normally. It has also helped foreign artists tap into American culture.

Vive le mp3!

..::mGee::..........
lexicon verbalizer!

check out the hype at:

http://lexicon.deviantart.net

whether or not we should pay for music isnt even an issue.of course we should-so that the artist can be fairly compensated for their work.will pay services like napster is proposing prosper?absolutely not-not the way things are now.i stopped using napster pretty much entirely since the bertlesmann annoncement came a couple months back.did my supply of free mp3's suffer?absolutely not.jc terminal is right on target when he said that it is going to be up to the artists to change the current way that digital music is distributed.many already have.and i have supported them.i've always been a fan of prince's music and he is one of the artists pioneering this new distribution.go to his site,pay a buck or two for an mp3,he gets the money and the recognition,not any record label.this napster club will fail miserably,p2p file sharing will continue pretty much unabated for now,and my music collection will continue to grow.what DOES worry me is the computer manufacturers announcing that they will be installing protection into all of their new computers so that un-registered copies of copyrighted music won't work on them.this is a scary thought and one that i think more people ought to be discussing.napster's death appeoaches.we should mourn them,move onto something else and keep this very important discussion alive,or we as music lovers,and the artists themselves,will surely be the ones who suffer in the end.

I have to agree. Either that or getting on the Gnutella network with some type of gnutella software. But I fear the record companies will go after this host napster servers. I am not sure how dependable they will be.

What it comes down to is this: If you create something, whether it be art, music, etc., you should own it. Its called intellectual property. You should be able to dictate what happens with it. If you want to post it on Napster, fine. Napster can become an incredible vehicle for surfacing your music. If you want to sell it, you should have that option as well. I'm sick of hearing all these seamingly "intelligent reasons" why Napster and Napster-esque situations should exist. You want free music, period. Stop lying to yourself and stop trying to justify stealing.

The free internet ended when people started to think everything should and could be free.

It all ended just before Internet Explorer 4 and Nestcape 4 were released.

Well for all of you who are upset about having to pay, it says on the Napster page that there will STILL BE A FREE SERVICE...go see for yourself! Visit this http://napster.com/pressroom/qanda.htmland scroll down to where it says 'Will there be a fee to use Napster?' and 'Will Napster continue to offer a free service?' for all the details.

DaGuy
http://www.daguysdomain.cjb.net

Sorry I put the wrong link to the Napster page in my last comment...go to this http://napster.com/pressroom/qanda.html

DaGuy
http://www.daguysdomain.cjb.net

How can it be stealing if neither supply nor demand have been decreased?

And ta be totally honest, I think an artist should be grateful that someone OTHER THAN themselves thought enuff of it ta share it w/other people.

OKay, guys, I predict napster WILL work, because we are the fringe. Ask the average user, heck, ask a little bit more sophisticated than that, and most wont know about gnutella, or any other p2p service. Napster has name and notoriety. And theyll have huge companies behind em. Napster will survive, rather, flourish, except your gonna have to pay. Im all for mp3, all for free music, but when people choose rather to DL an entire album as opposed to purchasing it, its sick. And there are plenty of people out there who do that. And as for everyones angst with the record companies, Im no huge fan, but lets give the devils their due. If they were really ripping off the artists, then why are so many artists millionaires? Record companies help promote, help get the name out, and help sell. Look at it this way: an unknown artist can go online, sell his cds, that he makes, and what reap a 7-12 dollar profit. Well, lets say he sells 10,000 cds, a ton more than could in reality be expected, than at the most herd rake in about 120,000 grand net. Now lets say they go to a record company. They get a buck a cd sold. Lets say they sell 1,000,000. Theyve already made 880,000 dollars more. Now an artist can make their own record company, but not all artists have this ability or desire. To alot of artists that would be spreading them way too thin. Out of all this, all Im saying is lets support the bands, lets help out the economy, and lets not rip off others.
Nate

Nate
http://www.hotspots.cjb.net

i'm not going to pay for using napster. there are a couple of reasons for that. first of all; i live in sweden and we have to pay internet access per minute. yes, for every minute we're online we pay about a cent, 60 cents per hour, $1.20 for 2 hours, and so on. second of all, i'm connected to the internet via a crappy modem that barely connects at 56 kbits. so downloading a song from napster ususally takes at least half-an-hour. third of all, i use napster kind of like a radio, as a channel for finding new music. i dl a couple of songs from an artist i'm courious about, if i like it i might download a few more, if i like them too i buy the record. and who wants to pay for listening to the radio?

/kj
kj@breakwaterdesign.com
www.breakwaterdesign.com

You're all artists too and yet you distribute your work free here on Devart when you could be selling your design skills to companies or your artwork to galleries. Devart is a perfect example of what "community" is about - free stuff and a gathering of people. Napster was a community before it sold out, plain and simple.

As for subscription service, HA! Us being the "fringe," we will move elsewhere, leaving behind all the many stupid Napsterites who saw it on MTV to pay like the suckers they are

The Gnutella network honestly can't scale up very well as it is currently designed. It just doesn't make technical sense.

I'd expect it to collapse if even a small percentage of Napster users switched.

Though I'm not a huge fan of Lars & Metallica, I definitely agree that I ought to have rights to my own intellectual property. *That* is not ridiculous.

I don't know about you, but my company only exists because of intellectual property. We don't employee carpenters.

Err, "employ" not "employee"

Music IS free.....whether you like it or not, it has been released. There will always be a way to get MP3z for free. Artist's who accept this and find other ways to make money from this music will succeed. Those who don't, will eventually die as artists. CD sales may be on the rise, but seriously, in the LONG term, CD sales are doomed - as more people find out about free MP3z. CD's will be collectors items, or promotional things, and not items of revenue. Napster will succeed in the short term, not everyone knows about the alternative - but even they'll find out eventually, and Napster will fail in a few years time. The current DISTRIBUTION industry WILL fall apart, eventually, dying kicking and screaming, many people will lose their jobs, many people will lose money trying to save the industry - but with free MP3z available, they're wasting their time. After it dies, Artists will see they have to make money by live performance, merchandising, etc...and make a lot more money than they do now, receiving a few cents per CD sold. They will encourage as many people as possible to download their FREE music, to get them to come to concerts, and buy merchandise.
The only way a new program or distribution system will succeed, in the long term, is if it is better than what we have now...ie, it must be free to the consumer, it must make profit for Artist. Anything less will fail...

Napster sold out the second they hunted down the VC's and moved to California. It's always been a fucking company with a plan to get rich. Don't fool yourself, buddy. Capitalism makes the world go 'round.

Pity all the artists, songwriters, etc. out there that don't play live. Death is knocking.

It won't be the same service. The BMG deal dictates this. Expect the free service to suck big cock.

I can tell you all about Napster from the the first person perspective. I am an ACUTAL recording artists with ACTUAL albums out that you could ACTUALLY find at your local music store (I'm not gonna say which band I play in, I will get flamed ineveitably enough anyway, but let's just say you'll see me on the Ozzfest this year.) Unlike all the kids who think they are hip to the music world, I can really tell you about how hard it is to be a musician. And guess what: it's the easiest job in the world! It is a job, but it's a fun and easy job. You know how much of that $18 bucks I get when you buy a cd? about 80 cents. Pretty much all my income comes from bonuses and tours. That is why, as a nationally successful musician, I LOVE napster. It let's people who would never other wise hear my music hear it. There are people that live in parts of the world where some of my material is banned, and there are some rarities that people in the states can only get on napster. Unlike the greedy music industry, Napster actually indiscriminately sees that my material reaches vast audiences. You think I care if all the kids rip off my record label? of course not, because you can't "share" a rock concert, and no matter how many people DL instead of buy my music, I still sell out every seat in the house. I know the way this country works, I fought to keep my songs on OLGA, and when it shut down, the clones took over and nobaody paid for anything. People are not stupid, they will not pay for shit they don't have to.

You are SOOOOO full of shit.

Concerts are a bigger rip off than compact discs. I never go. $50-$100 for a fucking concert with a bunch of assholes is not something I'm ever gonna do. $25 for a t-shirt. Stop ripping us off, prick.

Did you bother mentioning most bands lose money touring? Touring sucks. Only big sell-out acts make money. I guess you didn't. You fat fuck.

Ok, any of you guys read the actual news on napster? Didn't they say it would continue to be free but the subscription would offer "enhanced" services? Either way, we wont' really suffer correct? and please enough of this fuck this fuck that..can we please talk in a civilized manner and quit insulting each other?

The Napster/BMG deal is dependant on a yet-to-be-finalized "secure" subscription service. I'd expect the worst.

Why would anyone pay for the subscription service if the free "non-secure" environment continues to exist as it does today?

Relax. Sit a spell.

You almost made a respectable posting until that last sentence.

As always whenever the topic is MP3's and record labels there come many awesome comments. There is some great stuff on this page. It's almost like a religion too, people stand solidly in their beliefs - and fight for them. You can tell by the emotion in many of the posts.

I am not a musician. I will probably never know what it's like to make an album or sing in front of a large crowd. But I would think that musicians would want as many people people to hear and enjoy their music as possible - through whatever medium. Even if it meant scraping to get by. What would you rather have? 150 Million people who enjoy your music for free? Or one person to enjoy it who paid $150 million? For me the choice would be simple. Sure it's easy for me to say since I'm not a musician. But I can say that I can definately see an artists true colors by where they stand on this issue. And I will make my music purchase decisions accordingly.

As for the Napster deal... I think it's too little too late for the music industry. They should have made the decision to do something like this 5 years ago. Too late now. The cat is out of the bag and people will get their music for free regardless of Napster or SDMI or whatever.

All of you who think that Napster should be free and therefore that musicians don't need to be compensated for their work should think about this: How would YOU like to pour your heart and soul into work day after day, week after week and month after month AND NOT GET PAID? I wonder how many of you would get up and go to work every day if you weren't getting PAID for it. Think about it!!! I bet most of you wouldn't even show up for ONE day. I have no desire to myself. I like being paid for my work just like you and think it's fair.Why would you think that musicians who give you so much should be treated with any less respect? I use Napster now and look forward to it being a pay service so that I can give a little back to the wonderful artists who have given me so much. It's only $4.95 a MONTH for GOd's sake. Get a grip people - that's an incredible deal for what you're getting. Be grateful, be fair, treat other people the way you'd want to be treated yourself and support Napster who will be offering you such a great, fairly priced service.

I know many artists who would choose the 2nd option sadly enough. That's what we call selling out.

Kinda like working for the record company, eh? They play concerts and make songs, which their record companies get their rights. They make millions of dollars for them, but they only see a very small portion of it. Isn't that stealing? I would consider it so. I will find my music somewhere else. What makes Napster strong is its userbase. After this subscription takes hold, you won't be able to find every song like you used to because the user base will decline dramatically. People will become frustrated paying 4.95 and getting nothing. The user base will get even smaller. A bad cycle will start. I bet artists see none of that 4.95. It will goes to Napster and BMG ONLY.

If you all think music creativity will stop because of p2p exchanges, you are either all blowhards or fools. Few have memories about self recording to so called newer media technologies and how, at each turn of the technilogical clock, music sales of ALL artists skyrocked in its contemporary technilogical format and permutaneous spinoffs.
Anyway, I may be an old fart but, I think that what started to pass for music since 1975 pretty much sucks anyway. Remember, the RIAA and the likes, are blowhards and fools!

Of course you should have the rights ta yer own work, but this is an entirely separate issue. Successful distribution methods need ta take hold outside of the major labels for this ta work.

The question here is where those rights should begin and where they should end. Selling copies for profit without rightful compensation is piracy and should remain illegal. However, sharing those same copies freely should be not only legal, BUT ENCOURAGED.

First of all, it's no more wrong ta dl an entire album than it is 1 or 3 songs. No one can guarantee (therefore speculation should be limited) that the computer user would've instead headed ta the store for it. As an artist, especially a successful one, I'd be happy that 1 more person has heard my work. You really should rethink your stance of every shared dl as a lost sale.

So many milloinaires??? R U kiddin'? For every millionaire artist, there are hundreds of thousands of artists w/day jobs ta pay the rent. As long as ya like workin' w/numbers, let's not forget ratios. Just because you can't name every millionaire musical act off the top o'yer head doesn't mean that they're an overwhelming majority. Have you even thought of the small fraction of artists that actually get signed? How 'bout the fact that even many of the artists that're signed don't get the success that the label can bring.

The beauty of the label's situation is that the ripping off they do is fully sanctioned not only by the law, but also by the artist who for over 100 years has had very few other options. Again, I repost this article written by Steve Albini, producer of In Utero: http://www.negativland.com/albini.html

Is that what keeps it turnin'? I was confused there fer a sec, but'chu've helped clear it up fer me.

Well said.

Hey, that's a good question. Why don't we ask AOL and Juno?

While the examples're somewhat extreme, I agree w/everything you said, andjer articulation is a welcome refreshment.

One of the many points you're missin', anon, is that musicians tend ta choose that profession because they love it. If you're doin' what'cha love, then gettin' paid is ancillary. Nice, but ancillary nonetheless. Most artists NEVER get ta quit their day jobs! Let's differentiate between a job we begrudgingly have ta pay the rent and a labor of love.

If you wanna pay fer Napster, go right ahead, but don't forget that the artists aren't gonna be gettin' any better of a shake thru this business model any more than they do otherwise. With this in mind, I'd rather go ta the store and by a high quality copy on a lucite disk.

A subscription based napster WILL work. More than 50 percent of napster users will pay for it. And here's why. Most people actually have deep guilt about "stealing music", and it will be their way to compinsate the artists. Having a subscription based napster is an even better idea than the original napster. When all of you 13 year olds grow up and understand how industry / business works, then you will understand why we NEED to keep funding the artists. Its part of life, you pay for entertainment, everyone has a job and gets paid for it, why should artists be any different.

I think the subscription system will work. It will probably substantially decrease their user base, but those that remain will gladly pay for a service they enjoy.

The problem, in my opinion, is that IT'S NOT FUNDING THE ARTISTS; IT'S FUNDING THE LABELS! It's just a big pay-off. The labels are saying, "We still think it's wrong and evil and naughty, but if you give us some money, we'll look the other way." And everyone's apparently cool with that.

They will try to do an AOL, make people pay for an easy-to use service.

Your second paragraph is so accurate. If you give money to the labels, everything is OK. Nice point, Ramenboy. However, I doubt this subscription will work.

They are wrong. Donuts make the world turn. I have proof.

::::::: ---- CHECK THIS OUT, YOU'LL LIKE IT!! ----- ::::::::
Bertelsmann is trying to make a profit from a product that they don't even own. This is totally illegal. The RIAA will still hate Napster for making money from "their prodcuts" even though it's reall the artists themselves. Napster should be free. I'm not going to pay for lossy, bad quality music. And users still have to face slow connections, cancelled transfers, disconnects. etc... And no one's thinking about the dial-up users. I've got a cable modem and I get discouraged at times by download times. Charging money for Napster is a very unwise decision. If you want a nice clone check out audioGnome (http://www.audiognome.com) Sorry, Windows only, but it connects to more than one openNap, etc. servers. It's got an extremely clean interface and actually supports resumed downloads, contrary to the Napster service some of you will be paying for. And finally if you like the music, pay the artist, NOT Napster. Believe me, you'll like having the purest quality audio and a nice jewel case to put it in and having all of the lyrics and artwork in the sleeve.

Man where do I start... Milla did a good job of showing one side of what I want to say but there's plenty more to think about here as well. Artists should do what they do because they enjoy it. This includes poets, musicians, painters, sculptors, dancers, etc. There are plenty of the above who would gladly share their art with others no matter if they were being compensated or not. Because for them it's not about the money - it's about the art and their love for it. I think the squeakiest wheels in this whole MP3/Napster thing are the artists who do make a pretty penny selling music and are concerned about changing their lifestyle more than the fact that so many people are enjoying their creation.

The other thing that needs to be understood here is that the money goes directly to the labels, not the artists. There's no guarantee that the money will *ever* make it to the artist(s) you enjoy. I would certainly favor a system where I can send compensation (at my own discretion of course directly to the artist instead of to the label.

Labels bug me anyway because of how much control they have over what we as consumers have access to in the way of music. I have known some great local bands that could have made it big but couldn't get enough backing from labels to really hit it. Instead they pump loads of marketing into these all boy bands and barely pubescent teenage girl singers.

You see getting on with a label is so important to an artist because of three things: infrastructure, distribution, and marketing. They have the infrastructure to pump out records and they know what sells. They have distribution channels with which to siphon CD's and other materials, and they have great proven marketing methods that can push up CD sales. So fundamentally, the music industry isn't about the music per se, it's about money.

That's the greatest thing about the Internet is that it levels the playing field. Artists don't need a recording contract to get their music out there anymore. Just like the guys donating their time to a great cause like Linux, you have people donating their spare time to great music. New compensation avenues need to be created to support these people - or strengthen existing less used avenues. But the bottom line is - share the music and let the love come back from those who enjoy it. The compensation will come. Trust me.

Some artists are embracing this idea of sharing their work for free. Other artists can buy into this philosophy or try to keep hold of the cash and eventually be swept aside by change. That's just my personal opinion.

lol

Many excellent points.

To all those people who say that Napster is doomed, It would be because of you guys out there who take advantage of it while its free and then flee when they ask for a bit of cash to support it. Think of this, if when Napster 1st appeared and it started charging $4.95/mo, it may not have as many users as it does now, but it would still be huge. The only way Napster will crash is if the users disappear and there is nobody to share files with, so I hope people quit whining over petty cash that you could probobly find in your couch each month and list the reasons why you use Napster now.

To all those people who say that Napster is doomed, It would be because of you guys out there who take advantage of it while its free and then flee when they ask for a bit of cash to support it. Think of this, if when Napster 1st appeared and it started charging $4.95/mo, it may not have as many users as it does now, but it would still be huge. The only way Napster will crash is if the users disappear and there is nobody to share files with, so I hope people quit whining over petty cash that you could probobly find in your couch each month and list the reasons why you still use Napster over those other ones that barely noone even knows about now

Look, the only reason Napster is going to start charging is to bribe the labels with a shitpot full of cash to stop all those lousy lawsuits!

It's the blood sucking lawyers, man. The greedy [explative deleted] businessmen who get most all the cash.

Real artists play whenever there's anybody around who wants to listen and most of us would probably never charge anything if could we eat air for a living.

You know why we play? Because it feels so good. When you're into it, it flows, not as good as sex, but it lasts for hours, man!

All this talk about stealing money from the artists by downloading mp3 is a really nice thought, but why don't you do something real? Next time you're partying down at the club, slid the band an extra 20! That's real! It'll make a difference!

Music is for the people! Profit is for the greedy.

That's some good thinkin there. Another alternative is to use Napigator. That uses the Napster software you're already familiar with, but you can log on to non-censoring Napster sites. A lot of the sites are still fairly small, but you can find a whole lot more stuff on there than with the censored Napster.

paying for napster? lmao... the sound of that is pathetic. if they want me to pay, i'll take my business elsewhere! for all who haven't found a backup service, here are two pretty good ones... www.imesh.com and rapigator.com

well off to use napster while it's free... lol... buh bye fellow freeloaders



- ^^ Rurouni Dimsum @>---------- (a rose)

>>

I agree with Nate, why don't you self absorbed bastards just get a grip. The artists should be compensated and the recording industries thrown out on their asses. Those of you who are whining about 5 or 10 bucks a month for a subscription fee need to pull your heads out and think of someone other than yourselfs. I'll always be loyal to Napster because of their support for the artists and their commitment to making it easier for the members to find and download what they wish. As far as i'm concerned, none of the other programs out there are as easy to use and find files as Napster is.As for those of you bitching and complaining, go back to buying your music from the record store and stop WASTING OUR TIME !!!!

LIsten, I don't know if you have mtv, but have seen cribs lately. It is unfair that i live in a crappy apartment working my ass everyday to feed myself, and those bastrds have gold ceilings and cars that could pay for my apartment for years and my college tuition. i agree that artists should be compensated fairly, but they don't get payed fairly. People work much harder then them not to make a fraction of what they make.

Napster = slow, greedy, and never coming up with a FINAL version?!?! ....comes to show how much u get for being a loyal "customer" to them...i mean we make their friggin' paychecks....damm...give us some credit and keep it free..and with switching over?! OpenNap (WinMX), ScourExchange WHICH BY THE WAY IS REOPENING AND ALOT BETTER CAUSE U CAN SEARCH MUSIC, VIDEO, ETC., and Gnutella (www.limewire.com)...Napster WILL be dead if it switches to pay-per-service...why u think pay-per-view sucks? u can rent it for the same amount of money and watch it 50 times rather then pay 4.97 and watch it once...

nada

First thigs first, I live the Engalnd, a cd cost about £5-£7's ($9-$13) which is a right rip off. I have a 56k modem which has free weekend and evenings for about $9(£5.) napster charges wont be more than $15 (£7) may be less depending on the major companies (BMG, Virgin).

Although i would pay Napster the money, I would only pay it if a sizable proposion of users still used it (other wise the song i want may not be there meaning it poinless i pay the money) and they made the resume feature avaible.

It takes me about 20 minutes to download one 4.5 MB file which cost me fuck'all but ppl like BMG loses $14 from me (which I think should just be for payback for having such high prices) and I download 30 songs a month (depending on what kinda month it is.) which would of cost me $420, $420 to $10 come on what is better i know you can get alternatives like WINMX and loads of other but none of them are as popular or have such clean interfaces.

THE BOTTOM LINE...
I would pay there $10 a month making what i do legel and helping a desent hard working place like napster on-line.

!!! KEEP NAPSTER ALIVE !!!