Free the Napster Five!
As the lead carrion feeder in ZDNet News' TalkBack pack, I've been thrilled to death by the heated response to a seemingly modest change in Napster's membership policies: In a move to settle a lawsuit from Bertelsmann AG -- one of the five major record labels suing Napster for copyright infringement over its MP3-swapping ways -- Napster CEO Hank Barry said Tuesday that Napster's 38 million users will soon have to pay "monthly dues" of somewhere in the neighborhood of $4.95 to access each other's hard drives.
Napster users in the TalkBack pool, however, are far less satisfied with the turn of events; for many music fans who've grown accustomed to the company's free service -- and who have rallied behind the company in what they see as a David-and-Goliath struggle with the music industry -- even this nominal fee is a bitter pill to swallow.
And for Napster fan and foe alike, the concession raises questions about whether flipping the pay-to-play switch will short-circuit the service's appeal altogether.
If Napster starts charging a monthly fee, "then the 'New Napster' won't survive," wrote Connecticut Web developer Rick Brown. "Such 'pay-per-view' services are only commercially viable if the product isn't being given away by the store down the street.
"This sounds like Napster is caving in to the RIAA and is being forced to spin-doctor a losing settlement into something positive. The longer the Napster/Scour/RIAA soap opera drags on, the longer rivals have to develop free, lawsuit-proof, peer-to-peer services like Gnutella. As soon as somebody develops a good, simple, idiot-proof interface for one of the peer-to-peer file-sharing systems Napster's subscription-based business model is history. Thirty million users have spoken, and they want free music. They'll get it even if Napster stops offering it."
Would a fee-based Napster be worth paying for? Plenty of correspondents said it wouldn't unless the company addresses some basic quality-control issues. "Sorry, but unless the quality is somehow regulated, you won't see me paying for it," wrote Michigan student Diane Elliott. "I'll just have to be content with borrowing CDs from friends who have money to waste on albums which are for the most part boring filler. Are you listening, record companies?"
"I don't really think a subscription model will work," opined Canadian student Jason Gambit. "There seems to be only about 3,000 to 6,000 people sharing files at any one time, and the peer-to-peer connections seem to be quite unstable lately (on my PC, anyways).
"If I were paying for a service, I would want no file 'leeches' (i.e., everybody sharing equally), and the connections would have to be stable. I don't think Napster can handle this, so I doubt a subscription model will work."
Meanwhile, a raft of readers warned that any steps Napster takes off the beaten track of popular acceptance risks sending its subscriber base down other paths altogether.
"I don't want to use Gnutella, but that is what this may come down to," wrote Sean Anderson (who chose to ululate instead of providing a location or occupation). "After being a loyal Napster user, I never thought they would sink this low. I've sent them e-mails several times, and I'll say it again: Charging money for Napster is stupid ... Period.
"It's called 'advertising.' AOL uses it with AIM, and Napster should use it, too. Ads pay tons of money, and I'm sure that it would go over much better than charging money. Music should, by all rights, be free. Royalties should be paid by sponsors, but if Napster charges, check out Gnutella.
"It's not nearly as nice, but it's free."