Napster 2.0 is set to offer 500,000 songs which fans will be able to buy through a monthly subscription or through one-off purchases.
The original Napster site was forced to close down two years ago when record companies began legal action for copyright infringements.
The original website, which boasted 60 million users, was brought by digital media company Roxio last year for $ 5m (�2.9m).
Will you pay for files? Do you think Napster has enough music that you want to buy? Has the music industry won?
The following comments reflect the balance of views we have received:
This debate is now closed. Read your comments below.
Your reaction:
No. Its apeal came from its indy start. Now that it's a corporation, it is just like the rest of the music industry, corrupt souless capitalism. They treat music like a product first and an art form last. This is why Napster 2.0 will fail. The original Napster was a revolution that shared art without the idea of profit. Now that profit is involved, there is nothing special about it.
Chris Shepard,USA
If new Napster offers the latest music at prices cheaper than in the shops, I would definitely use it. Who needs the box, after all? I am against pirate downloading of new music. Does anyone have more right to download illegally than they do to break into a shop and take whatever they want?
James Hardaker,UK
I would buy more albums if the liner notes were more interesting and informative than sometimes having lyrics and always a bunch of lame pictures of the band. How about including sheet music in electronic form on the CD? Discussions and stories that explain what the songs mean to the writers and/or performers.
Ewan, UK
 |  I don't think anyone would like to pay to just download low quality (compared to CD) MP3s  |
I don't think anyone would like to pay to just download low quality (compared to CD) MP3s. If I should pay, I would like to buy a record. The reason why people download is just to sample the songs and to enjoy the moment when and where the CD-player is not available. It will be interesting to watch how many users the new Napster could get.
David Song, Norway The reason Napster used to be so good was that you could find more or less anything that you wanted, which attracted more users and so even more files became available. These days the users and their files are spread more thinly across different services, but you can still track them down with a bit of patience. The new Napster won't even have that - sanitised downloading of acceptable tracks by selected artists. They are trying to cash on the old Napster's popularity, but they are looking to attract a completely different market, so why even bother keeping the name? It's nothing like Napster used to be and anyone who used Napster knows it.
Kat Wesley, UK
Call me old fashioned, but why has the concept of buying CDs been written off? I buy most of my CDs online. Even new releases cost less than �10 and I don't even have to pay for postage.
Dave, UK
If the high street chains and record labels had more vision they would have been doing this years ago and Napster wouldn't have had room to emerge. They only have themselves to blame for leaving a yawning gap in the market. As to whether the new Napster will be a success or not, well that depends on the price vs. audio quality. However, I suspect most downloaders aren't fussed about the quality really. Ever heard an mp3 burnt to CD and played on a decent hifi? Awful.
Jake Perks, Shropshire, UK
The debate is purely academic. I would love to use these services but they are only available in the US. There is a service available in the UK, but it is limited in content and is only for windows users who are prepared to use Windows Media Player Audio format. The record industry will have great difficulty in convincing people to pay when there are no alternatives, and CDs are being locked down so that they are trying to prevent you from using those on your MP3 player too.
Lee Craig, UK
| I will never pay to download and I can't see many people doing it |
No. I will never pay to download and I can't see many people doing it. 500,000 is not good at all and I am looking for variety. I will still buy lots of CDs but paying for files on my computer is not something I can do
Robert Mcdonald, Canada This "new Napster" is the antithesis of the original. I see it as a symbol of the corporate forces that have called me a thief. I'm not going to even look at their site, never mind buy anything from it.
Matthew, USA
The internet has made the flow of information - quick and cheap. After the connection, everything is easily accessible. Music is just one aspect the internet that has made an impact on our everyday lives - with a sector of the economy shrinking. And I say death to the middleman. Record companies, record stores, and services like Napster plan to charge a price for "name brand" music. This is like stopping a river with a toothbrush as other downloading options are easily accessible. The successful internet ventures will be subscriptions to an unlimited access to libraries of music that fit your musical taste.
Eric Hovius, Canada
It's funny that so many people publicly endorse the free/illegal services here and even call them as better service. You guys really need to download a copy of iTunes or Napster to find out what you are missing.
Eplt, United Kingdom
Paying for downloads, whether it's music, films, books, games or other media, is the future and we will get use to it. Streaming will be free like radio, but if you want to download a song, you will start to pay for it. Try taking a CD from a music shop from a preview station at Virgin Mega, which let's you listen to it for free. The RIAA sucks in America, but let's get real; someone has to pay for the convenience of this service, especially once the full catalogues of the major Big and Indy labels go on-line legally for global consumers. 25 US cents a song, no more.
Walter, USA
I'm a student in a top US music college. I hope that the Net will bring this industry down, so that music can go back to being an art. Even Pop art, but not imposed on people by marketing guys. The army of the music listeners seems to be becoming aware!
Gadi Sassoon, USA
I will gladly pay for music as long as it is a good quality, high speed download. If the online music companies can continue to offer people service like this then mainstream customers will pay. This feeds our impulsive give it to me now culture. There is not enough music on the network now, but the picked up 500,000 songs at launch so I have no doubt that due to the success of iTunes getting more songs will not be an issue so I will be patient, it seems to have most of the new music anyway. We all have won. The consumer can get good songs without buying crappy whole CDs. The labels are selling music again and also have a new outlet of distribution. The artist will benefit when they figure out they need labels to distribute online and they cut the middleman.
Joey Stevens, United States Pay for MP3s? They've got to be kidding. I buy a lot of music and I buy CD quality music. I'll never pay for the awful "demo" quality sound of MP3 files. Anyone who thinks MP3s sound good either has never heard a decent audio system or hasn't the ears to appreciate one.
Kulu, UK
People will never pay for what was once free from the same service. It's against human nature. Online music can only survive if playback becomes easy on your home (i.e. sonically decent) system. It's too complex now and too easy to buy a CD.
Bruce Hall, USA
It has got to be cheap as I find even the best mp3 files lack quality. Maybe now broadband is more prolific, Napster may offer music in the original CD .wav format, so one can hear the music as the producer intended?
Dave, UK
I find that I now buy more music on CD than I did before I started downloading songs for free. The reason is simple: I can now easily find and listen to the music I like, not just the rubbish they think I like on the radio and TV. For example, I'm not quite in to Nordic power metal. I buy CDs and other merchandise from the bands I like. The only ones that loose out are one hit wonders that seem to dominate the charts.
Paul Qureshi, UK
The only way it can survive is if it promotes itself as a site to find new music. With record companies continuing to market horrible music, Napster may find a niche for itself.
Mike Daly, USA
| Show me a wide variety of content and you'll see a LOT of people willing to pay.. |
I don't think that most people would object to paying for a service as long as Napster provides a large variety of content. That's what made the original Napster so popular; you could find almost any song, if you were patient. Now, they're trying to make 500,000 songs sound like this really huge amount, but, at Napster's height, there were at least 6-10 MILLION mp3s available on a good night, with a WIDE variety of music to choose from. That's the main reason why most of the pay-for-download sites will either sink or swim. Show me a wide variety of content and you'll see a LOT of people willing to pay..
James, US Hmmm - does anyone else remember "Home taping is killing music"? Well, it didn't, did it? File sharing isn't that different - plenty of artists still sell plenty of CD's, sharing or no sharing. Stop wasting money on Robbie, Whitney etc. - that's the loss maker!
Stuart, UK
Any company that provides a needed service at a fair price will do well. Unfortunately for Napster, the service they provide is redundant and their prices are excessive.
Jim, NJ, USA
I download music to try, not to buy. If I like something that I've downloaded, I will buy it on CD - and if I don't, the file gets deleted. I used Napster when it was a free service, but I'll never pay to download music, it would be a complete waste of money if I didn't like the song.
Jack Hatfield, UK
The capabilities of the original Napster were exceeded within months of the trial by a number of clones. I don't see why anyone should choose to pay when they can get a superior service free. 500,000 songs sounds a lot but it is trivial compared with what is available elsewhere.
Andrew, UK
I look forward to the launch of Napster. It should offer everybody an opportunity to download music legitimately instead of stealing it, as with the free P2P networks. By not paying for music, people are taking money out of the artists' pockets. P2P should be made illegal.
Shilan Morjaria, London, UK
What's the difference apart from the convenience between this and paying a quid to hire a CD from my local library and copying as many tracks as I want at CD quality? And I totally agree that as long as there are free alternates I won't be paying Napster, and neither will I pay to listen to bands I don't know.
Simon, UK
It is about time the music industry embraced new technology instead of trying to stop the inevitable. Unfortunately the industry has generated so much negative feeling among their target customers - the Internet savvy generation - that most will either continue using the free networks or one of the sites like iTunes, who are viewed as pioneers rather than rip-off merchants.
Hesave, United Kingdom
I would rather buy an album than pay for a download, even if the cost of songs was half the price of an album. A music collection is more than some files on a computer.
Jon, UK, Manchester
| A system that once attracted 60 million users, is unlikely to go down easily, even with costs |
A system that once attracted 60 million users, is unlikely to go down easily, even with costs; because, a substantial fraction of music lovers who benefited from the website innovation, will most likely go back for patronage, with the new fee assessment. Another compelling reason is that record stores also usually carry a fraction of available music, especially those of foreign, popular artists, as I recently found out, and would only order them for customers with a deposit fee; and, that is, if the music (CD, cassette, record or any other format) is available in their supply pipeline.
Igonikon Jack, USA For those who already have the PC kit to download, store and/or burn Music files, the cost per track/album is still too high. You can buy a real tangible Album from an Internet Music shop, for a similar price of the online album, so what's the incentive?
Danksi, UK
Today's music industry is being boycotted by the internet. The accessibility which people now have to fast connections instigates more downloading everyday. Although many people believe that Napster will not survive due to the fact that there are many other good programmes which allow you to do the same, Napster will probably one day result to be the most functional and probably cheap program since not far from now, people will stop buying CDs, just like people stopped buying tapes.
Franco, Spain
While free music downloads are still to be had it is hard to see a majority paying for the privilege of downloading. Rightly or wrongly people feel they have been ripped off by the music industry for years so many have no worries about downloading music without paying. Napster's success will also depend on the variety of songs it provides for download and the cost for each download.
Claire Herbert, London
| Napster does have a unique brand recognition which will give it a strong start |
It will survive if it keeps itself in line with other similar providers like D2. Napster does have a unique brand recognition which will give it a strong start which no other provider currently has. Of course, iTunes is a fierce competitor. The critical issue is who gets to the European market first. If Napster beat iTunes, loss-making Apple may suffer quite badly out of what is a potential money spinner.
William Dowell, UK I won't pay for this even if it comes to Europe. I don't think the music Industry will ever win completely. I can't see this being a great success especially as there are a lot of sites that you can still download music for free.
Anthony Doughty, England
IF they provide mp3s of sufficient content quality they will survive simply because the original Napster showed the kind of demand out there and iTunes etc are giving a very small download ratio to the demand. Personally I would pay for music I want but probably wouldn't give unknown names a chance as I would if it were free. Bring them to Europe. Don't forget we are still paying for the line to download!
Nigel Brazier, Greece
As long as free alternatives are available, I can't see many people wanting to pay for the new Napster service - especially while it restricts itself to the United States.
Rich, England
I think this is a bad move for Napster, with alternative P2P networks offering free music downloads people aren't going to use Napster! Napster's reputation isn't that good anymore! The recent battle the RIAA is having against the public isn't putting people off downloading copyrighted material their putting people off the music industry which isn't fair because the RIAA doesn't represent the industry just a few labels. Napster has turned into the joke of P2P and this one will die like the last.
Dale Morgan, Wales
Quite simply, I wouldn't bother with the new Napster as long as Kazaa and Grogster continue to exist. Besides, they don't carry stuff like rare bootlegs and outtakes. It's things like that make file-sharing really important - not just making mainstream music available online.
Naveen, Singapore
| A 'legitimised' Napster will never work while there are better services available |
A 'legitimised' Napster will never work while there are better services available. I only download to sample and still buy between 5 and 10 albums a month. I would much rather hand over my hard earned cash to an independent record shop than to a software giant. Plus you'll get no artwork!
Rob, Britain I have tried several of the 'pay' sites and have yet to find one that works! I think it really is too late to try and sell something that downloaders can get for free. There needs to be something extra, e.g. bonus or exclusive tracks. Also, most of the catalogues available are fairly narrow in terms of what they offer.
Irving Pangloss, UK
I was always happy to pay for music. When Napster was online I could listen to music I'd never heard before, and if I liked it I bought the CDs. I bought more music when Napster was online than ever before or since. CD sales rose when Napster was online (during a recession) and have fallen ever since. Something tells me the music industry are not as smart as they think they are. I am signed up to iTunes, so unless new Napster has more to offer I probably won't sign up with them. The best result for everyone is if all music is available from all or most suppliers, because if I have to have separate subscriptions for different labels I simply won't bother with a lot of them. But if Napster is following the iTunes model (listen free, buy if you like it), they will probably do well.
Guy Chapman, UK
Given the success of Apple's iTunes Music Store in the US (and soon in Europe too), what advantages does Napster 2.0 have over the Apple product? Will Napster be able to overcome Apple's first-mover advantage, particularly given that Apple's Music Store is open to Windows users, and Apple's iPod is the best selling digital music player in the world?
Daniel, US
One-Minute World News 
News services
E-mail this to a friend 
Printable version 
