Eric Dahl froths
happily in PC World over Napster To Go, an add-on to the Napster 2.0 subscription plan which, for an extra five
dollars a month (15 bucks instead of 10), allows subscribers to transfer their downloads to a sanctioned portable
device. I've criticized this plan before, so
pardon this new iteration of my complaint, but I feel compelled to balance favorable reviews of this thing when I
believe the reviewer to be missing a crucial fact of the consumer value proposition.
Though Eric Dahl treads lightly on this point, the main problem with Napster To Go is that the portable tracks are
still rented tracks, and they expire (become unplayable) if the user ends the subscription. The portable player must
connect with the service at least monthly to check subscription status and renew the playback license. This means that
the extra five bucks a month does not confer any extra ownership privilege, but merely portability privileges. In other
worlds, customers are underwriting the cost of Microsoft and Napster co-developing the DRM technology necessary to
operate this low-value system.
Is this any way to compete with ubiquitous, free, portable music in the standard MP3 format? Give me a freakin' break.
My ten bucks a month is well spent for desktop access to unlimited Napster downloads. I can make them portable by the
arduous process of converting them to MP3 (an unauthorized and difficult process). I can also purchase individual
tracks for 99 cents, then burn or convert them (authorized). But don't charge me extra every month for the "privilege"
of moving my rented music off the desktop. Get over yourselves and make the music portable to start with. Consumers
should avoid this bogus, self-righteous marketing tactic like the evil plague that it is.
Napster To Go: Review Misses the Boat
Reader Comments
(Page 1)2. I'll keep my comments brief.
Many of us want to do the right thing and make sure artists (and the businesses that underwrite the costs) are fairly compensated for their work.
Most of us believe that, at 99 cents a song, the balance is still out-of-whack.
The idea that I can have unlimited music to-go for the cost of a single CD each month is a great value proposition as far as I'm concerned. I plan to be a customer in the next week.
Posted at 5:58AM on Dec 19th 2005 by Pio Caesare
3. Hey man,
Love your blog. Gotta say, on this one, I disagree with you strongly.
My dream is a $25-50 a month, subscription based digital media playground - movies, music, TV, shows, games - where i have access to it all, on-demand, in the format I want, on the platform I want, where I want.
This 15 dollar Napster deal is a step in the right direction. Ownership really is not necessary anymore. Just complete access. Heck, I'll stream instead of store anyday! If I have to store to go, until we have wireless to support that, I'll do that.
But right now I have to "be illegal" and painstakingly download everything over days and weed through the crap to get what I want. Meanwhile, I'm WILLING TO PAY to be legit, have gurannteed quality, and supply. If that means I have to put up with a non-invasive, private "have-you-paid-this-month" DRM file halflife, then I'll gladly do it.
The only thing I want to see improved on now is increased direct compensation to authors/artists.
This is the business model of the future, and we should support it through VCL (eff.org) and our blogs. This is the way we must push the industry and this is a great sign. I may be leaving Rhapsody for this 5-dollar upgrade.
No flaming here, my friend. I think we're fighting the same fight. Keep up the good work.
4. In response to CS, I must point out that you are accepting without question the assertion of licensing corporations that performance is a "play event"; an assumption that the listeners' ears are not their own, and that each time a listener hears something - if it is a "protected by copyright" work - they are liable for a fee. This is incorrect, and a great myth.
Naturally, it is propogated as fact by licensing corporations to support their quest for legalized restrictions on individual rights in return for profit.
Like priviledged information, once you have acquired it - heard it, read it, seen it, the value of it declines. It is no longer exclusive, as it resides in memory. Possessing a digital or analog copy to replay is then merely evidence of the memory. The owner of the copy is free to set the value of what that is worth.
In relation to a large market of owners, artists may choose to set value of releasing works against what the market will allow. Because there is an overabundance of artists, and music is now so cheaply produced (where previously, it was not), a copy of a listen, sight or feel memory is worth considerably less. Thus, it is the market (the listeners) who are setting the "value" of a "play event", not the copyright holder - a dubious distinction to begin with.
There are many examples I could site of subsidization (variables which distort markets) in regards to music as a commodity. Even your own use of Rhapsody on company bandwidth - surely not something they intended when they spent the $xxxx's of dollars a month to purchase connectivity. This is simply another form of free access.
Posted at 5:58AM on Dec 19th 2005 by Jasperjed
5. I don't even have an MP3 player but I got a NTG subscription card because I can't use credit card. It's still a better deal than buying a buck a song. A flat fee for massive amounts of legal music. Is it perfect? No. I hate buy only tracks and eg. No Beatles. What I get for my money is MORE than I can listen to.
Posted at 5:58AM on Dec 19th 2005 by david
1. Unintelligent posts like this one make me question why I occasionally check in on your blog at all. Let's clarify a few things.
The fact that you believe the additional $5 is "underwriting the cost of Microsoft and Napster co-developing the DRM technology" is laughable. For starters, the typical user plays their music increasingly once it's transferred to a portable device, and not tethered to a desktop - that means more play events to pay for, publishing, etc. I'm sure Napster would love to be able to offer portable subs for $10. But the labels probably shot that idea down immediately - they wouldn't make any money. So it's a value proposition. As subscription service stand right now, they're a good deal for $10 (as even your curmudgeonly self would have to agree.) But things change once that subscription becomes portable. Having the luxury (not privilege) of taking unlimited amounts of music with you portably is simply WORTH more.
Let me give you an example. Personally, I love Rhapsody. I listen to it every day at work for hours, and discover new artists every day. But the sound quality is iffy, and it's tethered to my desktop; once I leave work, I have no connection to it. Today I listened to a great Aztec Camera album, which I'll probably go out and buy this weekend. But what if I had the option of simply transferring that album to my Rio, in acceptable 160 kbps audio? I would no longer be compelled to buy the album.
If you ask me, offering unlimited downloading and transfer of OVER A MILLION songs for $15 is a fine way to compete with "ubiquitous, free, portable music in the standard MP3 format". Can you name me one better? $15 will get you something better? (besides a tier of downloads on eMusic, which doesn't appeal to the average music consumer.) And so what if it's subscription - is Netflix a bogus, self-righteous, evil plague of a marketing tactic, as well? I pay Netflix $19.95 a month so I can watch 6 or 7 movies, tops. Having access to a majority of all recorded music - anywhere I go - isn't worth the same (actually, $5 less?). Quit devaluing music and making it sound like a minimum-cost "privilege".
Posted at 5:58AM on Dec 19th 2005 by CS