Talk:Napster (pay service)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Delete Link do to false info, link claimed Napsters bit rate was low because of then DRM, untrue, Napster plays at 192Kbps wma drm, higher then all other major music services(itunes 128kbps acc, Msn Musics 170Kbps wma drm)--72.24.253.141 04:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)sony465

[edit] Anonymous edits

Restored relevant link info, deleted an unrelated article. Please discuss before removing information that has been here for months. Svelyka 00:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Two links deserve deletion - Link to "review site" is a thinly veiled commercial endeavor. It's a generic website that exists solely to earn commissions from user sign-ups. It is hardly worthy of linking in Wikipedia, especially with the "reviewer" having a conflict of interest in that he earns commissions from signups.

The link to the article pertaining to the DRM loophole is not relevant, because that loophole was closed well over a year ago and remains closed.

Napsterwatch.com bears watching for possible deletion - getting site not found errors when trying it. --72.226.207.178 04:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC) Phillip

Sorry I couldn't reply sooner - by connection went out. Anyway, although I agree the overall site is towards downloads than it is about Napster I reinstated the Napster Review portion since not only has it existed here for months (someone would have it removed it much earlier if there was a gross consensus for non-existence) it gives the reader more detail about their services than other review sites in existence - and rather accurately I might add being I'm a subscriber. Furthermore, it is really difficult, especially these days, to obtain a monetary benefit by linking to Wikipedia (1000's would be needed). This is especially the case for this article which by my inference does not get many visits since it does not get many edits. Therefore, I am not convinced that the page was linked here for monetary benefit or conflict of interest than it was to provide information. However, I would be open to a replacement, but it is difficult to top this one, amazingly. I am also open to putting that information on the article itself. The link would need to stay, however, if using it as a reference. Svelyka 19:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The section I added about the Security Issue relating to the Windows Media DRM crack has been removed. I feel this is a very important piece of information relating to how napster operates and should be common knowledge as it affects artists and users alike. Nozom 08:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Artist inclusion policy

One user, 'Koenige' took exception to my original additon to this page, claiming the sentence "Napster apparently has no qualms about promoting and selling the work of individuals." was biased. He didn't attempt to contact me or even edit the article, just wiped it.

I'll put it here for now to field some serious opinions. If no-one challenges it, it'll go up :

- ==Musical Policy - "No Censorship", Or "No Concern"?== - - Napster apparently has no qualms about promoting and selling the work of individuals convicted of the most serious crimes. Currently serving a sentence in Vietnam for child rape among other sexual offences, Gary Glitter is featured on the service. Though the accompanying biography text by Dave Thompson mentions the nature of Glitter's offences, the tone is nevertheless sympathetic. - - Charles Manson - infamous for his masterminding role in the exceptionally brutal and senseless murders of the then 8 and a half month pregnant Sharon Tate, and four of her friends - also has material available for purchase on the site. - - A response from 'The Napster Support Team' to communication regarding the inclusion of such 'artists' on Napster's roster: - - "Napster's goal is to offer the widest and most extensive catalog of available music in its service. In addition to passing no judgment on the artistic merit of the content we offer, we do not censor our offerings based on the personal evils of the people who make it. While we understand that some music on our service may be found offensive and some artists' personal behavior reproachable or even criminal, it is not our policy to exclude such material and individuals."


---
This is merely personal opinion. It will not be added to the article. You have attempted to add this point of view many times before, and it has always been removed. This will continue to happen. It is not encyclopedic content. I wonder why you choose to single out Napster to add this, many many other music stores, both online and offline, distribute the music which you criticize in this text. Remember that they (the stores) are not distributing said artist's behavior or personal lives, they are only distributing content, content which does not harm people in any way at the present. Maybe so that the artists have conducted in illegal behavior, but it has nothing to do with the content of their media.
I recommend you look at Wikipedia's vandalism policy. If you continue to add this information, and it will be reverted if you do so, it may eventually result in your username and IP blocked from making further edits to Wikipedia.
82.27.107.85 05:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Being haughtily addressed by a *number*...? It's almost funny.

'This' is not mere opinion. It's factual.

If, for some reason you don't agree, you should be specific, and point out where you believe the contents verge from truth. Otherwise it *will* be added.

Since when does twice constitute 'many'? In the first instance, it was excised because the editor believed the addition was suited to the 'Napster Pay Service' page rather than the general 'Napster' page. I decided to accept this without protest.

The second time it was removed, the editor gave a weak, verging on non-existent rationale for their action.

'Encyclopedic content', by definition, is *everything* about a given subject [a dictionary is an invaluable aid for debate].

I for one would certainly have liked to have known a lot earlier that the work of convicted murderers was being sold on a site I was helping to fund. I'm sure I would not be alone in that. The Napster employee I spoke to on the phone was so unaware of this leniency, they at first professed disbelief. Until they checked the database that is.

No need to be anxious about favouritism. I will also add a similar addendum to the IMusic page once I have received a response from their customer relations dept. Perhaps other sites if they are prominent enough. This however is a choice, and nothing I am obligated to do.

I chose to 'single out' Napster because it was their service I subscribed to and was therefore familiar with. Unlike a disturbing number of self-appointed (and self-important) 'editors' and 'guardians' on Wikipedia, I was writing about something I've had firsthand knowledge of.

As for 'vandalism'...Again, I would recommend *you* look at a good dictionary.

Rayd8or 20:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• I agree with the IP, this entry into this is original research (See WP:NOR), and is quite POV (See WP:NPOV). Your personal opinion on the matter is academic, this is original research on your behalf, you have no citable sources other than your self, and it will be removed.

"Original research (OR) is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories, or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material, which appears to advance a position."

Do not add it again, as it will be reverted,and this will not turn into a revert war. (See WP:WW) "'Encyclopedic content', by definition, is *everything* about a given subject [a dictionary is an invaluable aid for debate]." This tone is not welcoming on Wikipedia. Enclyclopedia content is not everything about an item; that is for specific webpages. (See WP:NOT) This is a place for knowledge and substatianted fact, not for original research.

Sheeldz 09:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, look...someone else loftily pronouncing from the mount as if they were the voice of Wikipedia (despite only newly arriving).

"Thou shalt not."

"Thou wilt."

Etc, etc.

Lol, I'm not impressed with the would-be orders of an 'editor' (or 'editer' as you put it on your user page) who can't even spell simple words correctly.

What is this babble about 'original research'..?

You mean as in this? :

>>

Original research (OR) is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories, or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material.

>>

Hardly! There is nothing speculative about this piece whatsoever.

How clearly does this have to spelled out I wonder..?

Fact: Napster is willing to sell the product of *anyone*, no matter what crimes they have perpetrated, or are currently serving time for.

Fact: The criminals I have mentioned in the piece have their material available on Napster. The nature of their crimes can be verified on Wikipedia itself.

Fact: The mail I quoted in the piece is Napster's official stance. Not one word was edited by myself.

These *facts* can easily be verified by anyone who cares to enquire at Napster.

Tell me, which parts do you contend? What do you consider to be contentious? A moot point? Controversial? Erroneous? Scandalous even? Lol.

Do you get what I'm driving at here.…? I sure hope so!

It is *not* a piece of criticism as you have disingenuously implied. It is a fair and accurate detailing of a policy which will most surely be of interest to a significant number of consumers.

Explain to me *exactly* where you think 'neutrality' suffers. If you can.

Perhaps ethical considerations don't figure in *your* life (beyond being a busybody on Wikipedia), but they *are* important for others.

Rayd8or 21:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Ahem. You say that the "facts" are easily verified, but they have not been outwith Wikipedia published, therefore making your comments and additions totally original research.

Hardly! There is nothing speculative about this piece whatsoever. It is not about speculation, it is about items of information that are making thier debut on this site, which is not allowed. You might be right, but this is not the place for this research!

*Fact: Napster is willing to sell the product of *anyone*, no matter what crimes they have perpetrated, or are currently serving time for. This, and others, maybe true but you have researched it yourself, without verification from other sources, including articles and others. Publish this material and it becomes notable, and this can have a home here.

Fact: The mail I quoted in the piece is Napster's official stance. Not one word was edited by myself. This was collected by you and is original research. Has anyone or anything published this sort of stance before?

Also, as an editer I might want to point out that personal attacks are not allowed. (See WP:NPA). Do them again, and I well refer you to an administrator. Sheeldz 17:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)