Comments on: Napster? Forget it, say students

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Tue, 19 Jul 2005 02:38:29 +0000

This is that “ONE” in One Million people.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Tue, 12 Jul 2005 14:54:02 +0000

Yeah, I was up at my old university, and the students currently there were boasting of 400kbps download speeds for albums and music. It was easier to download a film than go to blockbuster to get it. Unless napster do a microsoft and ban every other rival application off students computers, their model will not succeed.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Tue, 12 Jul 2005 12:13:32 +0000

It’s easier to download it for free than to even bother renting it. Ha. Ha.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Tue, 12 Jul 2005 02:30:52 +0000

stupid napster…

for one, the students probably just say that they pay for downloads

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Tue, 12 Jul 2005 00:56:51 +0000

“No one but no one wants to rent music.”

Speak for yourself. I love to rent music.

I assume you don’t go to movie theaters, you pay 8 bucks for two hours and walk away with nothing.

I would rather rent music than kill myself with high priced monetary high of drugs and booze.

I don’t wan’t to pay .99 cents for every song i want to hear just so i can own it and tire of it and forget about 2 years later anyway.

I could go on, but why bother.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Mon, 11 Jul 2005 23:17:41 +0000

Most folks can tell a pig in a blanket ain’t a beauty. No one but no one wants to rent music. Its an unending bill with only one result at the end. Sooner or later you gonna forget to send them the money, get in a pinch and not have the money, or be gone on vacation or the like and not be able to send it. At that point all the music you got from them is worthless. So is all the money you paid to keep those songs active. It all goes down the drain.

As the other commentor said, those serious about their music buy it. The DRM laden, 128 bit rate songs aren’t for serious music lovers either. If you spent the money for the stereo equipment of quality, it is readily noticed that part of the music is missing at 128 bit rate. No matter the adjustments you can make on a good stereo, you can’t adjust out the missing parts to make it better. The idea that I or anyone else wants on line music purchasing under the present overpriced, underquality offerings is a wishful dream on the part of the music industry.

Between the DRM and the propriatory formats, nothing is very compatible with the customer. The customer can’t do what he wishes with the mp3 after purchase. He can’t transfer it to another portable that doesn’t accept the same format, he can’t use it as he wishes. So why buy?

You buy because to own. The music industries present stance is you don’t own the music you buy. You are therefore wasting your money to purchase music. You aren’t even renting it as the price would reflect that. Instead you are being gouged once again by the music industry that wants to rake every possible penny from your pockets. No one wants to pay 18 bucks or so for a cd with only two good songs on it. The 9 dollar price range per song is simply too steep a price to pay and the customer has went elsewhere to find entertainment. Paying the artist is one thing, paying a conartist is something else.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Mon, 11 Jul 2005 22:37:42 +0000

didn’t the majority of people say “no thanks” years ago when napster sold out? the same with audio galaxy. NO THANKS!

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Mon, 11 Jul 2005 21:14:34 +0000

“…appear convinced that consumers will buy into the concept of renting their music.”

Yeah, right. on what planet? serious music fans don’t rent, they own.

Even though this guy writes for the Register now what is this fasination with 500million songs in three years by Itunes? If a new group had that dismal of a showing their labels would drop them. maybe he wrote for CNN, NY times and the others too long.

Rick