iTunes vs Napster

I burned my Napster songs to CD and re-imported them to iTunes, and they're on my iPod.

Leu,

It is a licensing thing and it varies country to country. iTunes can only sell what they are allowed to by the recording company and artists. Again, this varies greatly from country to country as the laws and contracts vary.

There are any number of reasons why a track might be in Napster and not in the iTMS. The artist or record company may have signed an exclusive deal with Napster, or the artist/record company may not like the terms the iTMS offers, or they may just not have gotten around to striking a deal with the iTMS yet. We're all just your fellow users here, so none of us have any special knowledge of why a given artist or track isn't on the iTMS, so all we can do is guess. I can guarantee you, though, that if an artist or track isn't in the iTMS, it isn't because Apple doesn't want them there.

Yeah, I was poking around and saw that Walmart.com has some exclusive tracks, even! Bwahaha.

wasn't Napster a site where it illegally allowed file sharing/downloads (?) - look where its at compared with some other sites - amazing at what they have achieved

The original company named Napster was, yes. The current Napster is a completely different company, bearing only the name in common with the previous incarnation (the current company bought the rights to use the name in a "firesale" dissolution of the original company's assets, if I'm remembering correctly).

I'll chime in on this one, not normally a chimer 🙂 - But I think you basically answered your own question if you think about it, because you're not the only one that remembers that. 😉

As well known as ITunes may be, I think the answer to why Napster may have a larger licensed market in the music industry is because of how well its name became as being a former illegal peer-to-peer network, being the first of its kind to be sued by the music industry in an explosive and well-monitored series of court proceedings - and therefore, in rectifying themselves came to agreement with a large majority of the incredibly long list of involved production companies (whom were in the suit) into legally selling their music, and got themselves a ton of license agreements. Basically the lawsuit, even tho the settlement went against them via a substantial request for monetary reimbursement - it left their foot in all of those companies doors worldwide when it came time to turnaround and legally sell their music and obtain the licensing.

That, in addition to the loyalist factor, they simply became a well-known name - discussed at every dinner table to office space - and it gave them quite an advantage as well from a martketing standpoint. Bad publicity is still, publicity. Free advertising. 😉

I think iTunes however, has got the hold of the portable music player market still. Somewhat how you'd call every portable tape or cd player a Walkman, a portable mp3/music player these days you call an iPod. And as much as others are pimping out their portable players, the iPod i believe is still what will eventually pull iTunes along as the leader in digital music stores. Which will in turn pull in more licensing, the more popular it becomes. Because what do you use for your iPod? iTunes.

Which is why it may be they dont want other players to work w/iTunes. Don't want to break up that marriage. Dominate the portable market w/iPod, iTunes will follow right behind.

Now, what both companies need to worry about are technical issues and application errors and rights protection issues before it harms the market and starts a reverse effect.

Well why don't I start a company that has an iPod-like device and no mention of DRM ever touches the consumer's conscience. I'd make millions.


Freaking RIAA shot themselves in the foot.

Or buttocks, depending upon the perspective.