is 99 cents too much?

[sao95]

(if there's been a thread similar to this, sorry, i couldn't find it someone posted napster coming back so i clicked the link and saw that it's 99 cents a song, does anyone else think this is high?

[daveleau]

It's the same price as many overpriced CDs, so to me, it is too high. Then again, I stopped buying CDs a long time ago and simply listen to the radio. The only perk is that you can get the songs you like instead of paying $15 for 7-11 crappy songs and 1 hit.

[The Real Bingo]

It's more than Kazaa costs...$00000

[SiliconJon]

LOL. Kazaa is turning out to cost much more for some!

DOH!

[M_Six]

For one or two songs here and there, it's not bad. For an entire album, it's too much. Although iTunes charges $9.99 per CD regardless of the number of songs on it. But I own VERY few CDs that I like every song on or even a majority of the songs.

[tony_j15]

Originally posted by SiliconJon
LOL. Kazaa is turning out to cost much more for some!

DOH!

They have charged less than 1% of total users, and they go after the major hosters , not the people that just d/l. You are more likely to get struck by lightning then sued by the RIAA.

[Mntsnow]

Personally I would be willing to pay around the 35-50 cents a song mark. Think about it...They have a lot less costs involved in doing download-able music.....Dont have to package, ship, Design cover art etc etc etc. CD's now days have gotten to be way over priced. My wife and daughter still buy 3 or 4 cd's a month each but I personally don't care for 95% of the music produced nowadays so I wont buy and just listen to the radio or my older 80's & 90's cd's or my cassette tapes

[Gomer]

I would pay 1 cent for the ability to listen to a song online. Not to DL it and own it, just to listen to it.

Call it Radio on Request if you will. Cause that's all MP3's are to me.

[MD1032]

Why should you pay a buck a song when you can have them for free? *cough*P2P*cough*. Anyway, how high-quality are these songs? They has better be CD or better quality for what they're charging. My personal opinion is that P2P should be legal, because you're dealing with a lot of junk. You can type in "Dazed and Confused", get 14 hits, and actually keep one of them if you're lucky. Most of the stuff is mediocre quality and/or virus infested and/or fake and/or incomplete, and the list ges on and on. It takes at least 10 hits and downloads to find one that's suitable to save to your music. It's not CD quality, so it's like sampling the music. If you want the real stuff at good quality, you buy the CD.

Personally, I'd advise Napster to charge less if they want to make a comeback. What if I downloaded 10 songs at a buck a piece and then only liked one of them? If I were to join, a good deal would be 10 cents a song for me. Max I would take is around 40 cents a song.

[Admin RR]

Why should you pay a buck a song when you can have them for free?

Because you don't do your job for free, that's why. When you are willing to work 8 hours a day 40 weeks a year for nothing, then download away... Until then:
http://www.napster.com
http://www.apple.com/itunes/