DMusic.com | for indie musicians and fans | Free MP3 music downloads

Napster, The cool cat is coming back.

Posted by leflaw in on October 24, 2003 at 1:23 AM
Downloading 2.0 Return of Napster is part of new wave of pay-to-play online music Articles by PHIL KLOER - Atlanta Journal-Constitution Friday, October 24, 2003 The cool cat is coming back. Napster, the computer program that revolutionized how millions of people think about music, is getting ready for a public re-launch on Wednesday, this time as a legal, authorized service charging 99 cents per song. The Web site sports the famous Napster logo, a cat wearing headphones. Napster joins iTunes, Apple's popular music store, which launched a version for Windows users last week (thus expanding its availability to tens of millions more computer users), and several other services. All of them offer hundreds of thousands of tracks for less than a buck. "Welcome to the digital music revolution," promises Apple's iTunes Web site. It's really more of a counter-revolution, but the new wave of legal downloading programs might be the pivot point for the entire music industry, as it fights slumping CD sales and massive free downloading of songs. More than 1 million copies of Apple's new iTunes for Windows were downloaded in the first three days, Apple said, and users bought more than 1 million songs in that period. When iTunes launched for Macs in March, it took seven days to reach the 1 million mark. "I think there's potential for this to be the future path of music," says Tim Dowd, an Emory University associate professor of sociology who studies the music industry and file-sharing. "If they can make it as easy to download as the illegal [services], that can work in their favor," he adds. Brandon Stringfield, 18, has been testing Napster (sign-up is limited until Wednesday), after previously using the unauthorized music file-sharing program Kazaa. "I'd rate it pretty high," says the Atlanta accounting firm clerk. "It's an easy interface for finding new music -- that's what I love about it." Other legal downloading platforms include MusicMatch, Rhapsody, and BuyMusic; computer manufacturer Dell and Web store Amazon.com are both reportedly considering joining the game. Although they differ in specifics, for the most part they copy the file-sharing networks like Kazaa and Gnutella by making music available song by song, instead of only on CDs. They generally offer huge catalogs (often not as big as some of the illegal services) of current and past hits, from Eminem to Dean Martin. A few major musical acts still refuse to authorize online sales of their music, including the Beatles, Radiohead, Madonna and Metallica. If the explosion of new sources to download music legally is the carrot, the Recording Industry Association of America continues to brandish its stick -- lawsuits against illegal file-sharers. The RIAA sued 261 file-sharers last month. Last week it mailed letters to 204 more file-sharers, warning them that they should contact the RIAA and discuss a settlement to avoid being sued. The letters were mailed to people sharing more than 1,000 songs. Even with what appears to be a change in momentum, however, file-sharing is still much more popular than authorized downloading. "You're not going to wave a magic wand and have this stop overnight," says Eric Garland, CEO of BigChampagne, a company that measures online file-sharing. "This is how a lot of people have chosen to get their music." And it was Napster that introduced that choice. Created by code-writer Shawn Fanning (who's on board Napster 2.0 as an adviser) in 1999, it allowed anyone with an Internet connection to search for songs on other users' computers. The program spread like an epidemic, peaking at about 60 million users worldwide, before the music industry shut it down in 2001 through the courts. While Napster struggled through bankruptcy court (the name was eventually bought by Roxio, a company best known for CD-burning software), many post-Napster clones sprang up. Instead of the music industry having one target, there were dozens of file-sharing systems, and an estimated 40 million users in the United States alone. Sales of recorded CDs have fallen sharply for three straight years, while sales of blank CDs have soared. Analysts think the growing number of online music services will eventually shrink as users settle on one choice. Napster and iTunes seem to be well-positioned now because of name recognition; iTunes has been running since March (for Apple Macs only until now), and has sold more than 10 million songs so far. "We have a bunch of very comparable services, each with their own natural constituencies, and the ability to market to their constituencies is what will determine their success," says Josh Bernoff, a Forrester Research analyst. "The three keys are ease, cost and catalog," says Emory's Dowd. "They have to bring those three things together." Comparing the services can be daunting and confusing. A number of popular CDs are available across the board, including Outkast's new "Speakerboxxx/The Love Below" and the latest from Sting, 50 Cent, Dido, Martina McBride, Coldplay and Mary J. Blige. But availability can still be capricious: John Mayer's new "Heavier Things" is available only on BuyMusic, and there it's offered only as a full CD at $12.79, instead of track by track. Some services allow you to burn songs to CDs easily and repeatedly, while others have arcane restrictions. In general, though, the new generation of legal download services is far superior to early attempts. What's important to music fans, though, is not so much which service prevails, as it is the better options available. Many music fans have said they turned to file-sharing because the music industry was forcing them to, by selling only full CDs instead of individual songs. That excuse is now all but gone. Contributing: news services RATING FOR-PAY SERVICES NAPSTER 2.0 Price per track: 99 cents per song; $9.95 per album Selection: 500,000 songs Pros: Familiarity; lots of value-added content; message boards and user playlists help form communities Cons: Nothing obvious Note: Currently in beta testing; opens to public Wednesday, Oct. 29 APPLE ITUNES MUSIC STORE Price per track: 99 cents per song; $9.95 per album Selection: 350,000 songs, increasing to 400,000 next week Pros: Easy to use; audiobooks; celebrity playlists Cons: Could use more and better searching methods Note: Now available for Windows PCs as well as Macs; only iPod-compatible service MUSICMATCH Price per track: 99 cents per song; $9.99 per album Selection: 240,000 songs Pros: CD-quality sound; free streaming radio stations (more for $4.95/month subscription) Cons: Boring graphics Notes: Plans to double selection over next year RHAPSODY Price: $9.95/month subscription; then 79 cents per track to burn to CD Selection: 390,000 songs Pros: CD-quality sound; eclectic choice of radio stations Cons: Songs won't download to hard drive; hard to get a complete song list for an artist -- keeps giving you "editor's choices" Notes: The only major service still requiring a monthly fee before you get started BUYMUSIC Price: 79 cents to $1.19 per song Selection: 300,000-plus songs Pros: Web-based service; no software to install on your PC Cons: Multi-step download process more cumbersome than others Notes : That name reminds users they're no longer downloading for free -- Phil Kloer

User Comments

zippythechip...	Date: October 24, 2003 @ 1:37 AM I use MM Jukebox for ripping and burning CDs. For the $30 upgrade price from the OEM version, it's a decent product. It also works for converting my vinyl LPs to CD, (using .wav format). But I wouldn't give any of these clowns a penny to download tunes under any circumstances. ~zippy.
woodhead	Date: October 24, 2003 @ 1:38 AM .99 cents for an mp3, I dont think so, RIAA get real this is crap
gdZiemann	Date: October 24, 2003 @ 1:39 AM "Analysts think the growing number of online music services will eventually shrink as users settle on one choice." Yes, more consolidation! More monopoly! Bring it on! We only want one choice. Baaa. Baaa.
tasadar24	Date: October 24, 2003 @ 1:42 AM I think all of them will die out. They all suck, and theres not enough people who want mp3s for the price.
toyloy	Date: October 24, 2003 @ 1:49 AM This might be out of topics but just let everyone know 20 of us are now boycott the riaa since we heard a 12 years old being sue.....no more spend on CDs now....
spikester	Date: October 24, 2003 @ 1:57 AM Who says these are mp3's???? More like WMA files to be more precise.
dumby	Date: October 24, 2003 @ 1:59 AM I really don't care what they offer any more. I really have developed a distaste for RIAA sponsered music and their so called "artists". Instead, I just bought 6 CDs from CDBABY. Was wondering though, how is the money split up from the online sales? Who gets what? P.S. Welcome toyloy and company.
zippythechip...	Date: October 24, 2003 @ 1:59 AM toyloy, not off topic. Boycott is the whole purpose. Tell everyone. See http://www.eff.org and http://www.stopriaalawsuits.com/index1.html Welcome to the fight! ~zippy.
gramm	Date: October 24, 2003 @ 2:02 AM Who is Brandon and why is he saying in public I used Kazaa?Was he already caught by the riaa and sentenced to community service? One more thought "soaring sales of blank cd's" you know alot of people are into digital cameras and pics on disc and as everbody knows you can put all your files,reports or what ever on them just like a floppy.
zippythechip...	Date: October 24, 2003 @ 2:04 AM dumby, also check out used music stores in your local area or online. Many indie resources are also available. Personally I'm not sure how the money goes, but anything is better than what the RIAA offers. I guarantee it! ~zippy.
TheSherminator	Date: October 24, 2003 @ 2:42 AM Only 500,000 songs? Not to mention this fact: If napster II turns out to be the greatest thing ever, I will use it... after the lawsuits stop and the DMCA is repealed. If napster II offered songs for one cent each, I'd do it.. if it went to the artists. Otherwise.. who cares? Wow, the same scam only online! The RIAA is really getting with the times! f.o.d.
JusticeForAll	Date: October 24, 2003 @ 3:16 AM Same s*** - different toilet. They still haven't learned a darn thing. I predict the major labels and the RIAA will be destroyed or seriously stripped of power by 2008.
Cryxan	Date: October 24, 2003 @ 3:58 AM Something tells me I won't be able to find Alka Vuica or Waldemar Matuska tracks on this service. Next!
johnn225	Date: October 24, 2003 @ 6:33 AM i'd easily pay a quarter per download, and have no problems with the RIAA. These companies, and the RIAA should support them by reducing royalties, should be reducing prices to increse sales. Their competition offers a wider selection for free, the only pro these things have is that they probebly wont have viruses and mislabeled songs, so they should do more to pull people in if they want to stay in buisness...
Twarrior	Date: October 24, 2003 @ 7:06 AM A monthly fee of $9.99 would be fair if the songs were 25 cents per song. Also if they did that, chances are they'd sell 100x as much. But now what about DVD Rips? What do they plan to do about those? If they are charging $0.99 per song, ya know if they do this for movies, it's gonna end up $4.99 per movie, and it aint even worth that cause its gonna take 10 thousand years to download. Also what about new episodes of TV Shows? Or old shows you can't get anymore? As for music, what about older and rare music? Or what about Indie music? If you think they are gonna let the Indie artists sell on these services your nuts. Wbat if you don't know what a song sounds like? Can you download a clip? I mean WTF?
dinibub	Date: October 24, 2003 @ 9:54 AM DRM, DRM! Has anybody mentioned this is a con? The article doesn't. I will never buy music that has DRM. I am afraid that people are gradually ignoring the fact that they are losing control over the music they own, and are saying it is OK. We should never support any site, whether RIAA or independent, that has music crippled with Digital Rights Management. Why bother, when you can buy a high quality CD and rip it?
CodeWarrior	Date: October 24, 2003 @ 10:09 AM Napster is back and now ya gotta pay- Ho hum Brandon loves the interface. That's nice Brandon, have a nice day.
BrandonH	Date: October 24, 2003 @ 10:23 AM This guy is bringing disgrace to everyone named Brandon everywhere. If the RIAA can sue 12 year olds than there must be a way I can sue this guy.
napstersghost	Date: October 24, 2003 @ 10:37 AM Who ever wrote this article sounds like a RIAA member who will say anything pro industry or he's the most misinformed person on the planet. Napster the cool cat? Sorry, it used to be cool but not anymore. The RIAA has it's claws in it now.
Anti-RIAA	Date: October 24, 2003 @ 10:53 AM .99! You are crazy. That's outrageous. They have to pay for no manufacturing, packaging, distribution. .25 tops. You are still screwing the artists, you are still screwing your customers, so guess what....SCREW YOU! I will never buy your crappy overpriced music again you @ock smokers! I await your death.....
Deliriou5	Date: October 24, 2003 @ 11:18 AM 500,000 is no selection at all. Its still what they are wanting you to listen to. I alone could be sharing 10,000 songs, and I am sure I am not the only one. The Music Industry needs to wake up. People want to choose what they want to listen to. Not what some corperation wants. I will say it once, I will say it again. They need to make a service thats legal for UNLIMITED sharing and UNLIMITED downloading for a flat fee. Like $10.00 a month. THAT I would pay. Not .99 cents a song.
stonehenge	Date: October 24, 2003 @ 11:20 AM i hate wma you silly cat
boobuttonboo	Date: October 24, 2003 @ 12:12 PM Brandon Stringfield, 18, has been testing Napster (sign-up is limited until Wednesday), after previously using the unauthorized music file-sharing program Kazaa. ---kazaa unauthorized be being been by no. truth 2 be being saying?
nyer82	Date: October 24, 2003 @ 12:16 PM not only is it NOT a mere 99 cents a song, you must pay 10 bucks a month for the napster subscription. So its 10 bucks a month PLUS whatever 99 cents a song if you want to download and listen to off your computer.
scayf	Date: October 24, 2003 @ 12:42 PM Napster was OK...but now, forget it. I'll get my tunes another way. I just submitted my second site to http://www.stopriaalawsuits.com/ ... http://expage.com/casadedave/ ... Spreading the word a little at a time.
PunkTiger	Date: October 24, 2003 @ 1:47 PM I want to have the children of Downhill Battle! http://www.downhillbattle.org/itunes/ http://www.downhillbattle.org/napster/ Read the iTunes one first, then the Napster one for a bigger laugh! - PT!
PunkTiger	Date: October 24, 2003 @ 1:49 PM Oh, yeah... get rid of those "%3Cbr%3E" things this site likes to add at the end of the URLs.
RIAAposterchild	Date: October 24, 2003 @ 2:55 PM Napster 2.0 ... Yawn! Like I said before just because you put lipstick on a pig, it still stinks!!!!!!!! Calling all clues, the riaa is obviously desperately in need of one...
maddawg15	Date: October 24, 2003 @ 3:23 PM thats f***ing bull crap, 99 cents per song, if i recall, its 99 cents per month, thats what their whole entire website said last month, i think you read it wrong.
koemoejoe	Date: October 24, 2003 @ 4:40 PM buying riaa music online 9 cents per song down loading software that will lock up you computer :free lissoning to indapendent artiests on DMUSIC.com for free priceless
alteredbeast	Date: October 24, 2003 @ 7:14 PM Who is going to be stupid enough to fall for brand recognition?! Napster the Original != Napster 2.0
grEdkilz	Date: October 24, 2003 @ 8:37 PM 500,000 songs?!? - LOL!!!!!! "Cough-Joke...I mean - choke!" More like 500,000,000,000,000,000 songs from every artist from the turn-of-last century!! Looks like it's still the FREE filesharing programs for the Beatles and others who haven't licensed for the pay services. .25 cents or less per song, all MP3, $5 a month, complete catalog, burn to discs... THEN I'll be a customer! "I Want My..I Want My..I Want My MP3!"
Bl1ster	Date: October 24, 2003 @ 9:37 PM What about the smaller labels? Do they get to sell on these services? 95% of the music I listen to is from small labels. .99 per song...might as well buy the cd. Better quality, packaging and crap...burn it to mp3 and put the dern thing away. I agree with the majority here, .25 per song tops what I'd be willing to pay. Offer .wav files for .99 without DRM. That is music on demand that can be worked with without it falling apart. Try equalizing an mp3 with Cool Edit Pro...good bye quality. BTW, still sharing 6,253 songs on Kazaa...guess the RIAA can't find their crap...:^). SUE ME!!! SUE ME!!!!
TheSherminator	Date: October 24, 2003 @ 10:36 PM To the person that said .25 cents per song would be ok: Yeah.. except the artists aren't getting it. I've said it before, I'll say it again: No dice! .99 cents is a HUGE rip off. They are charging what.. 10 cents per song less? wow! All that discount and they hardly have to pay for diddly. And they're trying to get other institutions to pay artist royalties too! So why is the RIAA here again? To make sure other people pay artists now? They won't do it, but they'll force it on others, nice. Also, thank you for mentioning DRM. I failed to mention it as well. Indie good! DRM bad! DRM bad!
kc8gpd	Date: October 24, 2003 @ 10:55 PM I say when the internet as we know it goes in the crapper, We should start our own local isp for our neiboorhood(s) using 802.11 Wi-Fi. Be just like a Dial-Up BBS back in the 80's but with a 2000 update. the more neiboorhoods that do this the bigger the intranet get's and eventually neiboorhoods can link 802.11 Backbones to link neihboorhoods together. No Server log's to track ip's. Can be put together by anybody using old 486 and pentium class computers and readily available Wi-Fi Equipment and high gain rooftop antenna's and all this is available over the counter and license free!!!! The RIAA and all their cohorts can kiss my bill of rights and I have a nice big DMCA they can suck on while they're at it. These Communist Bastards will never stop the free flow of Information, Ideas, and Entertainment. So you go ahead RIAA because you will never stop me or anyone else from sharing whatever we want. I'm The Man, I'm The Man... Oh yeah, you can suck our motherfucking dicks. hahahahahahahahahahhahahahaha Ps. I hope you all(RIAA) rot in Hell for suing our local flea market because you guys can't solve your own problems. A flea market is not there to be your piracy cop, they are there to rent space to vendors not police what they sell.
noot1	Date: October 24, 2003 @ 11:16 PM naspters web site says Premium Service For only $9.95 per month, consumers can enhance their Napster experience by choosing a premium subscription service that offers: Unlimited streaming and downloading Access to professionally programmed radio stations An personal inbox for music and messages Message boards to share opinions and offer suggestions The ability to send music to friends both within and outside of the service The ability to browse other members’ music collections
noot1	Date: October 24, 2003 @ 11:20 PM Store Features Napster users can: Listen to 30-second clips of all songs in the music catalog Choose what music they want to own, paying only $.99 per song and $9.95 per album Enjoy fast and easy CD burning with a drag-and-drop functionality Get detailed artist and album information Create play lists View music videos Search for music by genre, artist, track title or popularity Access over 4 decades of Billboard chart information Quickly and easily transfer music to an integrated portable device or a wide variety of other popular devices Discover and rediscover music through a powerful recommendation engine Opt out of music with Parental Advisory Labels Integrate tracks from Napster with existing MP3 collection
theHERMlT	Date: October 26, 2003 @ 3:03 PM they may as well get back in the bag.
RIAAposterchild	Date: October 27, 2003 @ 12:39 AM noot1 wrote: "The ability to send music to friends both within and outside of the service" Does the friend get charged .99 when I sent them music or is it free? Or do I get a subpoena for sharing music?