Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

chabig · Oct 22, 2005, 07:05 PM

Napster's new slogan seems to be "Own Nothing, Have Everything".

I just don't understand how the "Own Nothing" part is going to get people excited about renting their music. Maybe that's just me. What's your opinion?

Mullet · Oct 22, 2005, 07:24 PM

When I first saw the slogan in NYC on the side of bus stop, I thought, how stupid. I'm just not down with not having ownership of my music.

~Mullet

wdlove · Oct 22, 2005, 07:33 PM

No, it sounds stupid to me.

Eriamjh · Oct 22, 2005, 08:35 PM

"Own nothing. Pay up. We go under. So do you."

Doofy · Oct 22, 2005, 08:36 PM

It all sounds a bit commie to me.

Teronzhul · Oct 22, 2005, 08:37 PM

not just the slogan itself, but the entire ad campaign is idiotic. "Bye buy music"

demograph68 · Oct 22, 2005, 09:15 PM

Burn it to CD. Music is yours.

chabig · Oct 22, 2005, 09:32 PM

Originally Posted by demograph68

Burn it to CD. Music is yours.

You can't burn it to CD without paying extra, $.80 per song, I believe.

Oh, and I saw that yahoo music just doubled their price. They now cost the same as Napster.

Chris

Apple Pro Underwear · Oct 22, 2005, 09:48 PM

yawn, i thought they went under already

by the way, what happened with buymusic? wahahaha

Millennium · Oct 22, 2005, 10:57 PM

I applaud this move towards truth in advertising. Hopefully it will accelerate the downfall of the IP-feudalist model which subscription services represent.

Cubeoid · Oct 22, 2005, 11:48 PM

It's silly. Such a silly slogan. They should get toastered for that one.

Salty · Oct 22, 2005, 11:54 PM

Did we ever expect great things out of Roxio/Napster?

lngtones · Oct 23, 2005, 12:03 AM

Apple should put out some "don't support communists" ads.

Albert Pujols · Oct 23, 2005, 12:05 AM

Stupid poll wouldn't let me vote yes.

Weyland-Yutani · Oct 23, 2005, 12:06 AM

Originally Posted by Millennium

I applaud this move towards truth in advertising. Hopefully it will accelerate the downfall of the IP-feudalist model which subscription services represent.

While I agree that Napster and all the other on-line music services are losers compared to iTMS, what in the FairPlay agreement prevents Apple from changing any and all conditions to your "ownership" of the music you have "bought" from that store?

Not to get me wrong, I own a heck of a lot of the music from the iTMS, but I doubt I really own it. Apple can change all that with a software patch.

cheers

W-Y

Salty · Oct 23, 2005, 12:35 AM

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

While I agree that Napster and all the other on-line music services are losers compared to iTMS, what in the FairPlay agreement prevents Apple from changing any and all conditions to your "ownership" of the music you have "bought" from that store?

Not to get me wrong, I own a heck of a lot of the music from the iTMS, but I doubt I really own it. Apple can change all that with a software patch.

cheers

W-Y

Not if you remove the copy protection after you buy

olePigeon · Oct 23, 2005, 12:40 AM

Wow. Napster must've hired the marketing team from Commodore.

JoshuaZ · Oct 23, 2005, 03:31 AM

Originally Posted by Salty

Not if you remove the copy protection after you buy

Ahh... I think you summed it up quite nicely Salty.

willed · Oct 23, 2005, 09:13 AM

Originally Posted by Salty

Not if you remove the copy protection after you buy

I didn't know that was possible. Any hints on how it could easily be done, hypothetically?

PurpleGiant · Oct 23, 2005, 09:43 AM

Hypothetically one could use a search engine that starts with G and ends with oogle. They could search for software that starts with H and ends with ymn. One could hypothetically use that software to remove the DRM.

ReggieX · Oct 23, 2005, 10:09 AM

In theory, PG is correct.

In theory.

Maflynn · Oct 23, 2005, 10:14 AM

At its very roots this appears to be un-american. That is we cherish to own things, houses, cars, computers. Why would I not want to own (posses) my music.

Weyland-Yutani · Oct 23, 2005, 10:40 AM

Originally Posted by Salty

Not if you remove the copy protection after you buy

Ah yes, that is a theory I am familiar with. Apple claims that if you practice that theory and strip the DRM from the file, that you are breaking some law. I have no idea what law that is or more importantly if it can be applied in the country I live in.

Even so, the majority of people aren't as tech savvy as this crowd and will leave the DRM on the files, thus preventing them from ever owning the songs they bought.

cheers

W-Y

Salty · Oct 23, 2005, 10:48 AM

This is why you should live in a country like Canada. Where it is entirely legal to use a program like JHymn. Why do I use JHymn? Well I have my iMac in our church's youth room, and I have my entire music library on there so that it can be listened to by the youth group kids, it allows them to hear CDs before they buy that sort of thing without pirating. It also encourages them to buy Christian music because the message Christian artists tend to promote is a lot better than the "Shake this, Grind that, Suck WHAT?!" message of a lot of secular music.
Problem is right now we don't have an Interweb connection so any new music I buy I can't put on there and have authorized. So the Sanctus Real album I bought last night is gona go through JHymn today.

Weyland-Yutani · Oct 23, 2005, 11:07 AM

Originally Posted by Salty

This is why you should live in a country like Canada.

I do.

cheers

W-Y

PS: According to the JHymn site, you can't strip songs that one bought with iTunes 6 of the DRM. So right now.. the DRM holds for all songs bought with iTunes 6.

Scifience · Oct 23, 2005, 11:17 AM

You never "own" music you buy in a legal sense. Whether you use Napster, iTMS, or buy a CD at the record store.

You are merely purchasing a license that allows you to use the music in certain ways. If you actually "owned" the music, you would be free to make as many copies of it as you wanted, distribute it over P2P, etc. The musician/record label own the music, and always have.

demograph68 · Oct 23, 2005, 11:20 AM

Originally Posted by Salty

Not if you remove the copy protection after you buy

I know DVD Jon did a thing where one could prevent the drm from ever getting encoded on the music through itunes.

Millennium · Oct 23, 2005, 11:22 AM

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

While I agree that Napster and all the other on-line music services are losers compared to iTMS, what in the FairPlay agreement prevents Apple from changing any and all conditions to your "ownership" of the music you have "bought" from that store?

It's not perfect, to be sure, but it is a lot closer to what they make you think you're getting. A lot closer.

It is my hope that we will get back to the days when selling copyrighted works meant selling them; you owned the copy you bought, and short of redistribution you could do with it as you wished.

Weyland-Yutani · Oct 23, 2005, 11:33 AM

Originally Posted by Scifience

You never "own" music you buy in a legal sense.

REALLY!?!

Originally Posted by Scifience

Whether you use Napster, iTMS, or buy a CD at the record store.

Apples and oranges.

cheers

W-Y

Eriamjh · Oct 23, 2005, 11:43 AM

I thought all you had to do to remove the DRM was burn the tracks to a CD as a music CD. Then you can play it on any CD player and reimport to any computer as any format. I do this with every album I download from iTunes (all 4 so far...

).

ReggieX · Oct 23, 2005, 12:06 PM

Originally Posted by Eriamjh

I thought all you had to do to remove the DRM was burn the tracks to a CD as a music CD. Then you can play it on any CD player and reimport to any computer as any format. I do this with every album I download from iTunes

Re-encoding compressed music makes it sound worse. Why would you do that?

rozwado1 · Oct 23, 2005, 12:18 PM

Back to the marketing slogan.

It's bad practice to have a negative connotation in any slogan. Check out AdSlogans Top 10 Lists. Slogans should be proactive and entice people to try/buy whatever product is being pitched. "Own Nothing" just makes the consumer realize exactly what they are getting: screwed.

I think that Napster will do better by skirting around the subject of ownership and just pitch the "have every song in the world for $x.xx a month." They will get a larger 'Joe Consumer' market that doesn't know any better. Now they're gambling with words and I don't see it working out.