January 10, 2005
Brad Hill’s Napster to Go Criticism
See here. I do agree with Brad’s concluding point that charging the higher price for portability might not be a good way to “compete with ubiquitous, free, portable music in the standard MP3 format.” At the same time, I don’t think the higher pricing is just underwriting the DRM’s cost. First, Napster might be paying higher royalty rates to the labels for the portable subscription offering. Second, either Napster and/or the labels may see this as an opportunity to harness DRM for price discrimination.
Filed by Derek Slater at 1:46 am under General news
1 Comment
(This is a repost of what I put under Brad’s blog)
Hey Brad,
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.