Good idea originally Napster, I sighned up and all was well.. downloaded tracks no probs.. then noticed you NEVER own them.. so, whilst you are paying to subscribe, u can play tracks u download via the service, if u cancel the service u can not listen to those tracks.. in short a total con.. £9.99 per month x 12 = £119.88 per year.. cancel and thats dead money. Total Swiz

I did this a while ago, got the smaller 1gig model with less features. It works great, I laugh at my brothers ipod $1 a song. He said it holds 10,000 songs, I laughed and said. "You mean it holds $10,000 in songs." As I continue to pay $15 a month for unlimited songs.

I bet your brother would laugh if you had to cancel your $15 a month contract for some reason in the future and lose the ability to play all your music.

Each business model has positives and negatives. Providing you can always pay that $15 Napster is fine, but if want to pay for the track to keep then iTunes might be better.

Different people like different things.

Both of these business models suck.

AllofMp3.com rocks them both!
No DRM, and pay by the amount downloaded.

With Napster you have both choices. Pay per track and subscription. If you want to keep the song, buy it. The subscription is like a lease. You can listen to all the music you want (and take it anywhere you want), as long as you pay the $15/month. This works out great for a lot of people. I have about 2 static playlists, and about 30 dynamic ones. I just download what I feel like hearing that day. If I really like the song, I buy it. Otherwise, I listen a few times, and move on to something else.

Except for the fact that allofmp3 and their ilk are complete crooks, who sell all of that music without permission to do so. And they don't pay the artists or labels.

Sure, they claim it's legal in Russia for them to do what they do, and by hiding behind a very thin loophole in Russian law it might be considered so, but use of their service is not legal in almost every other country on the planet.

And did I mention that they are stealing from artists and labels? Well, I'll say it a third time then. They are crooks.

How, possibly, can one even expect that if they DID pay that an artist could reasonably expect to even, say, pay for a recording session with royalties from a download at about $.07 a song? Think about it, people.

Real fans support the bands they like by buying their music legally. Don't be selfish and stupid - pay for what you listen to.
(And no, paying allofmp3 for so-called 'discount' music doesn't count.)

That's a great idea.

Napster need to start getting exclusive Napster-only releases that are prominently promoted on affiliated record labels and musicians' websites. Unless I'm blindsighted, I've only seen this type of marketing for iTunes.

emusic did this back in 2000. still have my free 32mb ravemp. hahaha.

To compete with Apple you need to up the ante.
Until someone does that I'll stick with my iPod which works great!

Agreed. I bought an iPod several years ago and it still works fine. I prefer to rip my CDs myself to AAC rather than via iTMS however I can see the appeal (instant for one). A CD that costs £8-10 is ok to me. Everyone I know has a CD player so I can play it anywhere without needing special soft/hardware and can rip it to my iPod in minutes to take with me when i walk to work. If I am unable to rip the CD due to copy protection then i won't bother buying it, I fact copy protectio is the only reason I download albums these days as I have the money to purchase the few albums I want.