After receiving an email from Napster 2.0 notifying me that it was here (I knew it was queer), I immediately responded with some gripes about their service and whatnot. I encourage everyone to send an email with your views, however different they may be from mine. It's actually quite fun and only takes about 5 minutes.
-----------------------

From: "chris mcconnell"
To: napster@z2c.net
Subject: Re: Napster: It's Back. Download Napster 2.0 now.
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 16:53:23 -0500

Dear Sirs,

I see at the bottom of your email, you stated that I have opted-in
to receive updates from Napster. This may have been the case back in
the days of the original Napster, but certainly not for your
capitalistic "Napster 2.0". I have many reasons for opposing such a
service. I will address them in this email.

(1)
I do not agree with your pricing. 99 cents per song is over the top.
I know the majority of people who download music (both independent
and major label artists) don't want to pay that much for an
obviously inferior file. 50 cents would be more appropriate (at
least for a 192kBps mp3 file), and considerably less for less
quality.

(2)
Although you allow the sharing of files (even though you have to pay
for the download), I do not agree with the fact that you may not
allow files to be shared that are permitted by the copyright holder.
I know that there are many independent artists that would like to
spread their music through P2P networks. Unlike major labels, some
independent labels give control of the music to the artists, and
these artists don't believe that selling their music will make them
the big money. This money comes from touring. All of this goes for
artists not signed to a label. Although the RIAA claims to represent
90% of all legitimate music sold in the US, no one is falling for
their lies. I read somewhere that independent artists (signed to a
label or not) outnumber major label artists 99 to 1. Maybe the RIAA
is deluded and believe that all the independent artists do is cover
songs. If this is so, they need a rude awakening. The poor
acceptance of the current P2P networks is largely because there is
an active boycott of RIAA products. We will not download, we will
not buy, we will not listen to the radio unless they are playing
local and other independent artists. This takeover of the market has
got to stop. It is unfair to all the artists who want to be signed
in the future, or not at all. They need a fair opportunity to get
their music out there to show people there is more than Britney
Spears and all the other corporate music. If you need to implement
some sort of checking system to identify whether or not users need
to pay for it, then do so. But I encourage you to allow music by
artists who allow for free downloading. Otherwise, other P2P
networks will take over as the legal file-sharing networks. You will
not be able to compete with these networks, as they will be free and
also contain files that are legal. Independent music will flourish
and all RIAA labels will fall unless certain changes are made.

(3)
Finally, the last reason I will give for opposing the RIAA endeavors
and products. Unless the suing of consumers stops and the DMCA is
repealed to require a lawsuit to be filed before a subpoena is
obtained, the boycott will not stop. I'm not saying that this will
boost sales, and as a matter of fact, the music industry may never
recover. However, this may be good to start the rebuilding of the
music industry. Maybe this time the labels will get rid of the RIAA
(a.k.a. the middleman), allowing for them to make more money. Also,
this time they can give more money and control over the music to the
artists. I think everyone knows how corrupt the business is already.

In closing, I ask that you remove me from receiving updates.
Although, I would like to hear from you regarding this email. I will
use your service if the price per mp3 is lowered (50 cents is nice),
and you allow music to be shared for free (as long as it's permitted
by the copyright holder). This means the live shows allowed to be
shared for free by artists such as Dave Matthews, Tenacious D,
String Cheese Incident, Jason Mraz, Maroon 5, etc. This also means
music by independent artists and major label artists alike. Any help
towards achieving our goals would be appreciated.

Sincerely,
Chris McConnell


>>From: Napster
>>To: pyrageus@hotmail.com
>>Subject: Napster: It's Back. Download Napster 2.0 now.
>>Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 04:05:44 -0800 (PST)
>>
>>NAPSTER'S BACK.
>>
>>Discover and Buy Music in a
>>Whole New Way with Napster 2.0.
>>
>>NAPSTER HAS THE BEST WAYS TO EXPERIENCE MUSIC:
>>* Share music with friends using your Napster Inbox
>>* Listen to what other members are currently playing
>>* Browse other members' music collections
>>* Find music by using the past 50 years of Billboard charts
>>
>>NAPSTER HAS THE LARGEST DIGITAL MUSIC CATALOG:
>>* Over 500,000 tracks and growing
>>* Buy tracks for 99 cents and albums for $9.95
>>* Or, sign up for Napster Premium for $9.95 a month and get
>> unlimited streaming and downloading and fully-interactive,
>> commercial-free radio
>>
>>GET NAPSTER!
>>http://napster.z2c.net/rd4/ck/3342-17345-2280-3?m=1-02&e=647486abc09e
>>
>>You are receiving this email because you opted-in to receive
>>updates from Napster.
>>
>>To unsubscribe from future mailings, please go to:
>>http://napster.z2c.net/m/em.mprs?e=647486abc09e
>>
>>(C)2003 Napster, LLC
>>
>>
>

a few hundred of these may help

Just vote with your feet.

http://www.allofmp3.com offers a lot of commercial albums (not just indie labels) for either $10 per gig or 1000 tracks p/m for $15 p/m

Which works out about 60x cheaper then either iTunes or Napster

Plus you get to choose the file format & bitrate, including MP3, and there's no DRM

The site's based in Russia so they don't have to deal with the RIAA copyright BS

Also just thinking, to be perfectly honest after coming across that site by accident (It's 2 years old but doesn't seem to be very well known which is strange) it's done a hell of a lot more to get me off filesharing then any RIAA lawsuit will ever do.

If the RIAA offered a site with the same terms and conditions, had all their back catalogue and heavily advertised it, I've a feeling it would have a much larger effect on P2P usage then trying to beat the public into submission

I'm also a convert to allofmp3.com. They had the music I was looking for, decent quality, outstanding price. Don't know what their BW limit is, I'm hoping the site doesn't get too popular and shut down.

Wow, I didn't think my two things would be posted (my other was the one where I came across the old writing). And if they did, I didn't think they'd be up this quick.

I see that Allofmp3.com is claiming to be legal. If you believe that I have a bridge for sale.

How dare you pollute this page with your sh*t, mroop. Go sell your bridge elsewhere.

You have a problem with me saying that allofmp3.com is an illegal site?

Well they claim to have a paid up licence from the "Russian Multimedia and Internet Society"

Whether that licence covers downloading outside Russia, or is entirely made up, is anyone's guess.

One thing though if it was illegal I would've thought the RIAA would've pounced long ago

I read that too. The first thing that gave me pause was that it is way too cheap. Then I checked The Beatles, who haven't licensed anything for download. They have the full Beatles catalog plus tons of Beatles bootlegs - material that was never officially released. Generally speaking, if it is a Russian site it is illegal. I've stumbled on some Russian sites that sell cd's including out of print stuff. They look legal but they're not. There are also lots of Russian sellers on ebay selling rare and out of print cd's - all illegal boots.

Sadly, mroop, you're probably right. It is very likely that allofmp3.com is not licensed by any record company to distribute the works they're selling. It would explain the reasonable price: They're not paying the labels who own the music. And being in Russia makes it pretty hard for the RIAA to do anything about it.
~zippy.

Here is a Russian cd site. Lots of interesting items.

http://www.musiccdvideo.com/

food for thought, it may be illegal here but not in Russia. so technically they may be right when they say it's a legal site

Wow! What a concept, thieves stealing from thieves stealing from artists and consumers...

What irony!

hey! any good OGG Vorbis sites?????

See, this is what I'm talking about. People are being very inconsistent in their moral arguments. If you're gonna complain that iTunes and its ilk are overpriced and unfair to artists, you can't then go and support a russian site which charges about the same for albums and actively ignores both the rights and wishes of the artists. If you think musicians are getting a dime for the downloads at allofmp3, or that the Beatles decided to offer their support to some fly-by-nite operation from one of the most corrupt nations in the world... well then, mroop has a great deal on a bridge for you.

'All the materials in the MediaServices projects are available for distribution through Internet according to license # LS-3М-02-36 of the Russian Multimedia and Internet Society. Under the license terms, MediaServices pays license fees for all the materials subject to the Law of the Russian Federation “On Copyright and Related Rights”. All the materials are available solely for personal use and must not be used for further distribution, resale or broadcasting.'

All I could come up with when I googled "Russian Multimedia and Internet Society" (quotes ensuring it search for that term exactly) were pages asking if allofmp3.com was legit, leading me to agree with mroop, zippy and ac-x. The site isn't legal and by purchasing music from this site you are giving your money to Russian criminals exploiting artists rather than American criminals exploiting artists.