Napster Confusion

[MikeVick7]

Why does Napster make it sound like you can sign up for $14.95 a month and download all the music that you want with no per song charge?? Then you go on to read about it and they tell you "as a member you can purchase Track Packs to download music at discounted prices."

Am I way off on this? I feel like I'm missing out on something here.

[BrianD]

Maybe they use the same advertising agency as Blockbuster?

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by BrianD

Maybe they use the same advertising agency as Blockbuster?

Beat me to it...

[scooter]

There was a feature on the national news the other night talking about the new Napster. According to that report the $14.95 a month you pay to Napster is to "rent" the music. The files are specially encoded so that they only work on certain MP3 players. Once you end your membership, you will no longer have access to the music.

At least that was my understanding of the report.

[MikeVick7]

Originally Posted by scooter

There was a feature on the national news the other night talking about the new Napster. According to that report the $14.95 a month you pay to Napster is to "rent" the music. The files are specially encoded so that they only work on certain MP3 players. Once you end your membership, you will no longer have access to the music.

At least that was my understanding of the report.

Now that part does make sense. I think that is what they were calling their "Napster On the Go" feature.

[panerd]

No offense to anyone posting but you guys are acting like fine print is something new to the year 2005. Obviously Blockbuster wasn't going to let people keep new releases for months and after the lawsuit you weren't going to be able to download 1000 songs from Napster for $15. Do the attorney generals really have to get involved representing idiots?

I can understand if my mom signs up for a contest and buried in the fine print it changes her long distance service to $50 a minute. But all you have to do is read Blockbuster or Napster's ads to know what the real deal is.

[MikeVick7]

Originally Posted by panerd

No offense to anyone posting but you guys are acting like fine print is something new to the year 2005. Obviously Blockbuster wasn't going to let people keep new releases for months and after the lawsuit you weren't going to be able to download 1000 songs from Napster for $15. Do the attorney generals really have to get involved representing idiots?

I can understand if my mom signs up for a contest and buried in the fine print it changes her long distance service to $50 a minute. But all you have to do is read Blockbuster or Napster's ads to know what the real deal is.

No...I knew that fine print wasn't a "new" thing...I was just having a hard time...while "reading" Napsters ads...understanding what was all included in their $14.95 per month deal. Downloading unlimited songs for $14.95 per month did indeed seem like a unrealistic deal...but of course like Blockbuster...they were making it difficult (of course) to know exactly what you were getting. So I just came on here to get clarification.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by panerd

No offense to anyone posting but you guys are acting like fine print is something new to the year 2005. Obviously Blockbuster wasn't going to let people keep new releases for months and after the lawsuit you weren't going to be able to download 1000 songs from Napster for $15. Do the attorney generals really have to get involved representing idiots?

I can understand if my mom signs up for a contest and buried in the fine print it changes her long distance service to $50 a minute. But all you have to do is read Blockbuster or Napster's ads to know what the real deal is.

That's Attorneys General to you, bub.

[Ryno]

Worst. Customer. Service. Ever.

I won't bore you with the long story, but the moral is that I won't ever deal with them again. If I were you, I'd look elsewhere.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by panerd

No offense to anyone posting but you guys are acting like fine print is something new to the year 2005.

If by "fine print" you mean "buried through about 4 links through the proper FAQ questions to find it", then yes that's new (which is what I had to go through to find any hint of the buy/restocking fee at blockbuster.com).

[Turd Ferguson]

I used the free trial of Napster. You are able to download almost any song you want and listen to it on your computer. However you can't burn any songs to cds without paying 99 cents a track for them. You can put them on an Mp3 player for no additional fee to my understanding.

[Lathum]

The moral of the story is------I HATE METALLICA

[scooter]

Originally Posted by Turd Ferguson

I used the free trial of Napster. You are able to download almost any song you want and listen to it on your computer. However you can't burn any songs to cds without paying 99 cents a track for them. You can put them on an Mp3 player for no additional fee to my understanding.

I think the news story I mentioned previously stated that it required a special kind of MP3 player (the story mentioned that only 6 MP3 players currently exist) for the music to play on.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by scooter

I think the news story I mentioned previously stated that it required a special kind of MP3 player (the story mentioned that only 6 MP3 players currently exist) for the music to play on.

No doubt it would have to be one that supports their flagging of the files...else you would be able to burn them as well.

[stevew]

Anyone still use this service?

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by MikeVick7

Why does Napster make it sound like you can sign up for $14.95 a month and download all the music that you want with no per song charge?? Then you go on to read about it and they tell you "as a member you can purchase Track Packs to download music at discounted prices."

Am I way off on this? I feel like I'm missing out on something here.

Well, can download them to your PC - but they don't work in anything but Napster - or you can import them to your MP3 player at no extra charge. You just have restrictions on what you're allowed to do with it.

They're probably working in cahoots with the folks from Blockbuster, who still are licking their wounds over that promotional gone awry.

I think Rhapsody (listen.com) has a lot more music than Napster. I have memberships to both, though my Napster is set to cancel this month because I don't use it. It's better if you want the newest music faster to download and burn. For Rhapsody, it's far better if you're listening to it and want to chill and stream stuff at home. And their catalog is huge.