Talk:Napster (pay service)/Archives/2012

False info?

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

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)

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/Censorship rambling ramble

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)

'Outwith'...? Is that a word I've hitherto not seen, or linguistic 'original research'? Lol.

Alright, despite the points I listed being true, let's stick to the original piece to avoid muddying this up:

>>

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.

>>

Do you take issue with any of the above?

Insisting I have to back up the fact that Napster sells the product of these individuals is akin to saying I need to provide a source to verify that a bottle of Perrier [other brands are available] contains mineral water.

Anyone using the Napster software [not even a subscription is necessary] can verify this material is available without referring to encyclopaedias or academic papers. It's absurd to suggest otherwise. Anyone who wants to refute this, stand up and be counted!

As for the communication from Napster, it is absolutely authentic, but I will concede that my word is not *proof* that this is indeed their own words. Strangely, they don't list this policy in their conditions. Nowhere I could see at any rate. Perhaps they don't wish to draw attention to the issue for some reason...

Therefore, I can accept *that* section of the article being dropped for the present.

Now for a little criticism of my own if I may. I see you persist with your erroneous spelling of editor despite being corrected. Perhaps it is more 'original research'... Please desist or it will be deleted. Lol.

You are free to report any perceived heinous crimes against your pride to admin. As well as the European court of human rights, and your mother if you so wish.

Good luck!

Rayd8or 22:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I have decided that you are not listening to me, even after you confirm that it is all original research. You cannot place this research onto this site, as it is an encyclopedia, not a journal. Create your own website, write about it it newspapers, get some people to notice it and then it will be worthy of inclusion.

The tone of your comments ruins any chance you have of being able to get this included for the moment. And, it is little matter that I agree with Napsters Artist Inclusion policy. This is not the place for the discussion. I take no pride in saying things cannot go into the encylcopedia (I learned the hard way of the rules, with my first article being removed) but they make sense.

Also, http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Outwith is a word.

Sheeldz 09:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree to let half the article go (despite it being logically consistent with the rest) and you say I'm not listening? Hmmm...

"...you confirm that it is all original research."

Nonsense. I have done no such thing, and neither have you.

I refer you to this page:

http://www.napster.com/view/artist/index.html?id=12219612

And this one:

http://www.napster.com/view/artist/index.html?id=11509195

I asked if you could logically refute the first section of the article, and you haven't, just formlessly complained. Therefore your objection isn't credible.

"The tone of your comments ruins any chance you have of being able to get this included for the moment."

Well I'm not fond of your tone either, but I wouldn't mess about with any of *your* articles on the basis of it.

What's being discussed here is the suitability of the article, not how much discomfort my fairly mild responses here are causing you. Altering on the basis of the latter criteria would be obvious mere egotism, and not in the best interests of useful reference.

Odd that one minute you're claiming my description of Napster's artist policy is unsubstantiated 'original research', THEN you say you agree with it(?!)

I'm getting a strong sense of hypocrisy here, as well as faulty logic.

Rayd8or 20:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The fact is that these artists are not what is up for dispute, it is the policy that you claim is unethical that you are wanting included after you asked Napster about it, which is origina research. I am not disputing the existence of artists, or their position in the service.

Napster's policy can be placed here, however any commetary on who or what has been included beyond the exact policy is not credible. If you have a press released policy, or some other source from which you can obtain your findings then place them into the article, as they cannot be disputed, but it must not be from either negative or positive perspective and I think that both of us are not best suited to that.

My tone is one of information, not to sound condescending or otherwise, but I am not interfering with your article, as no such thing exists here.

My point and argument is simple; the policy is exactly that, and this site is not for discussion of said policy. The actual policy should be placed here, not your passage about it, which is written from a non-neutral perspective.

This: "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." if found on a printed press release should be placed into the article, as it is encyclopaedic. If you cannot provide these sources, then it should not be added. Sheeldz 22:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

"it is the policy that you claim is unethical that you are wanting included after you asked Napster about it, which is original research."

What..? Where in the article did I claim it's unethical? Where in the article did I say I wanted Napster to include their stance in their published policy?

There is no discussion of this implicit policy in the piece, just two illustrative examples of what I mean by 'individuals convicted of the most serious crimes'. I think this would be a helpful pointer, given the agreed omission of Napster's so far publicly unpublished official stance on this.

If the article were to run thus:

"Napster apparently has no qualms about promoting and selling the work of individuals convicted of the most serious crimes."

, and were to be left at that, would most find that very helpful?

A discreet amount of concrete examples is always useful, whatever is being highlighted. Two is hardly overkill, and I don't think many reasonable/sane people would take much issue with my descriptions of the individuals mentioned.

For the record, I do have an opinion on this, but then most contributors will have an opinion on what they add/take away. It doesn't necessarily follow that any particular piece they're involved will *show* that opinion.

If I were to say, "BOYCOTT NAPSTER OR BURN IN HELL!!" on the page, then that would be something quite different.

Rayd8or 22:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

"Perhaps ethical considerations don't figure in *your* life (beyond being a busybody on Wikipedia), but they *are* important for others." That would be wee you mentioned ethics, I did not mean in the article.

I will reiterate my point: The Policy should be placed here; examples are not needed. Also, your sentence "no qualms" is not neutral in anyway;

My suggestion: Napster has an artist inclusion policy that does not discriminate against the artist themselves... which is basically the policy. Sheeldz 12:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't put words in my mouth. That's far more offensive than any 'tone'. It's also dishonest. I mentioned ethics, but I didn't state what my personal stance was. You may well have inferred correctly what my opinion is, but don't say I've said things I haven't.

"Napster has an artist inclusion policy that does not discriminate against the artist themselves..."

That's vague to the point of being almost meaningless. "Doesn't discriminate against *what*? Race? Religion? Sexuality? Obesity?", people will ask. Your version goes the opposite way of what you are accusing me of. It makes the policy sound like a positive thing to be applauded.

The following would provide far more clarity:

Napster has no apparent restrictions on the artists it accepts for inclusion in its catalogue. This includes individuals both convicted of, and currently incarcerated for, the most serious crimes.

The company has no publicly published policy on this issue, but nevertheless searching the service's roster confirms the above.

Rayd8or 17:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The fact that there is no publicly published policy means that it should not be inluced here.

My wording is not positive, as it just states that there is a policy and there is no discimination against the artist, which is exactly what Napster said to you. If we are discussing ethical opinions, then discrimination might be placed into the same bracket as "homosexuality", "satanic ritual", "gun crime", "drug abuse" and others, all of which are not serious crimes, as you suggest like child molestation and murder. My suggestion is for the placement of the Policy that Napster have said themselves, and no commentary on it, like your passge with words like "apparent" and "serious crimes".

Discrimination is exactly what you are doing by name checking, and even singling out certain artists and crimes.

Now onto counterpointing your points: "Don't put words in my mouth. That's far more offensive than any 'tone'. It's also dishonest. I mentioned ethics, but I didn't state what my personal stance was. You may well have inferred correctly what my opinion is, but don't say I've said things I haven't." - I have to admit I don't know where you are getting my putting of words into your mouth. You stated that Ethical Considerations could be important, which is correct, but it is not for the topic of a encyclopedia to make these discussions. About what words you didn't say, I am rather confused about that. I have directly quoted anything from this disscussion. If you mean the "No Qualms" part, that is from your original article entry, which can be seen at the top of the edit. I did not infer your opinion; I know for a fact that you have one, and therefore that makes you (and I) non neutral. Hence the disscussion area here. I do not take lightly the accusation of being "dishonest", where I pride my self on being. Can you point out exactly where I was?

"That's vague to the point of being almost meaningless. "Doesn't discriminate against *what*? Race? Religion? Sexuality? Obesity?", people will ask. Your version goes the opposite way of what you are accusing me of. It makes the policy sound like a positive thing to be applauded." - I think I have covered this above. This statement is not vague in anyway, it is infact more accurate than your expanded version.

This is a rather heathly debate about the worth of including the above material. I will reiterate my points again. - This is original research, and should not be placed in here. - If you can find unoriginal research about it (a published artist inclusion policy) then it may be placed here - It can only be placed here in a neutral style, and not with any opinionated words, or phrasings. - This will probably reduce the worth of even placing the policy in the first place.

Sheeldz 10:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, you may be enjoying passing the time with this debate, but I am finding it extremely tiresome watching it go round in circles as you um and ah about what you actually think, and ask me for pointless clarifications.

I don't appreciate having my time wasted by people who can't reason properly or even be consistent with themselves. I'm beginning to wonder if you're more concerned with 'winning' this 'debate' rather than with what's reasonable. I can't help musing if all this nit-picking has got something to do with your ill-fated first entry...

"The fact that there is no publicly published policy means that it should not be inluced here."

Hmm, that would be *why* I've agreed not to put up the policy (which nevertheless YOU say you agree with).

"My wording is not positive, as it just states that there is a policy and there is no discrimination against the artist, which is exactly what Napster said to you"

Rubbish. Napster said a lot more than that. About 100 words more, as a cursory glance at their correspondence to me will confirm.

"You stated that Ethical Considerations could be important, which is correct, but it is not for the topic of a encyclopedia to make these discussions."

Hmm, that would be *why* I haven't included any discussion about ethics in my article. My point is that people should be informed of important aspects of the way a company is run. Just as I would want to know if my bank had ties with the Mafia, I would like to know if a company I support financially has convicted murderers on its payroll. So would others [Don't ask me for a source for 'others'].

"About what words you didn't say, I am rather confused about that."

Why am I not surprised by this? <Rhetorical.

The words I didn't say, would be words to the effect of what you indicate here: "...the policy that you claim is unethical that you are wanting included after you asked Napster about it..."

I wont bother to ask you where I said what you said I said, as I know they weren't said.

"My suggestion is for the placement of the Policy that Napster have said themselves, and no commentary on it, like your passage with words like "apparent" and "serious crimes"."

Ye gods. This is like the okey-cokey. In-out-in-out...and on and on and on. You were moaning about taking it out, as you bent over backwards to stress it was 'original research'. I agreed to take it out. *Now* you want it back. Which is it..? Or of you of no fixed opinion?

The words 'apparent' and 'serious crimes' are commentary in your world? Hmmm, I think objectively....they are not. Did you get the tone there? Lol.

'Apparent', since I was going with the policy-excluded version (as you originally wanted), as it is APPARENTLY the case there are no restrictions on artists when Charles Manson's material is sold on site. Can you divine the logic there? It's actually more lenient than saying, 'no restrictions'.

'Serious crimes', because well, mass murder and child rape are undeniably classed as serious crimes by anyone who understands the concept of 'serious' (even by people who like Charles Manson). Btw, it is also a legal definition.

"Discrimination is exactly what you are doing by name checking, and even singling out certain artists and crimes."

You don't seem to have noticed the revised version I proposed, *dropped* the names you don't want besmirched and unfairly dragged through the gutter by pointing out what they actually have been documented as doing.

"I did not infer your opinion; I know for a fact that you have one"

You're *severely* trying my patience, but alright, where is it stated then? Not that its relevant as it's most definitely not in my article, or even on this page.

This is where you should slap yourself on the head and exclaim, "D'oh!" I think.

Choose your words carefully next time - I'm not going to spend all year thrashing this out with you. Got things to do and so forth. See...?

Rayd8or 23:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I have had enough of this too, but I still think that what I said at the end of the last post I made makes my points rather clearly, which I notice you missed. I'll repeat them here again, and then be done of it.

- If there is a publicly published policy of Artist inclusion, then it should be posted here. If there is not one, then nothing should be mentioned here. You correctly have stated that substantiating the fact that these artists are available on Napster is easily certifiable, so why the need to put an entry about them here, if the information is so readily available. - If you can find a policy that Napster have released, it must be released without commentary, as is.

The closest thing I can find to which we seek is the following: "Certain albums may be subject to the Recording Industry Association of America ("RIAA") "Parental Advisory Label" (as defined at http://www.riaa.com/issues/parents/advisory.asp). The RIAA assigns the Parental Advisory Label to an entire album and not the individual songs on the album. All Tracks from such labeled albums will be labeled as "explicit" within the Service ("Explicit Tracks"). If any of your searches on the Service return Explicit Tracks, they will be identified as such in the search results area. During registration, you may elect to filter out Explicit Tracks from your search and browse results within the Service. You may change that election at any time. You may also elect to create a "Parental Control Password" (which can be different from your registration password) by clicking on the applicable link and following the directions presented. If you create a Parental Control Password, you will be asked for that password any time you try to change your election to filter out Explicit Tracks. Note that Tracks that were recorded prior to 1985 are not subject to the RIAA Parental Advisory Label. Napster shall have no liability or responsibility to you for any content or materials, including Explicit Tracks, that may be available in connection with the Service that you might find objectionable. " Taken from http://www.napster.com/terms.html . If that is the industry standard, then Napster are at no obligation to tell you of past offences that artists have committed (especially Charles Manson, being before 1985.) so the policy of artist inclusion is industry wide, and is probably worthy of its own article, not a mention in the Napster article.

I would lke to point out a few things. When I said "the policy Napster have said themselves" it did not mean the one they told you as you incorrectly read, it meant the one that they have not as of yet released publicly.

In a nutshell: I think the artist inclusion policy is not notable for inclusion in this article, but already mentioned here. Sheeldz 09:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

No, you've made nothing clear, just contradicted yourself again.

Its bizarre to suggest that just because something is easily verifiable, pointing it out isn't appropriate. If that was the criteria for content inclusion, then Wikipedia wouldn't even exist.

I didn't discover the criminals I mentioned were on Napster's database until a long way into my subscription. It was an unconscious assumption that it wouldn't be there. I've *never* seen a Charles Manson CD in a high street retailer; the reason should be obvious. No? Complaints.

>>>I would like to point out a few things. When I said "the policy Napster have said themselves" it did not mean the one they told you as you incorrectly read, it meant the one that they have not as of yet released publicly.

Yeah, right, sure. WHAT exactly would that policy be then...? And WHERE is this policy they have said other than the one described to me??

I haven't 'incorrectly read' anything. You're just fabricating in an attempt to appear less foolish, but it's having the opposite effect.

This is what YOU said in an earlier post:

>>>My suggestion is for the placement of the Policy that Napster have said themselves.

Contrast with this:

>>>In a nutshell: I think the artist inclusion policy is not notable for inclusion in this article.

Maybe your 'little brother' or someone else using your account wrote the first statement, perhaps..?

And to cap it all, you link to a page which has absolutely no relevance to what is supposed to be being discussed here. The article you're pointing to is about LYRICAL CONTENT, not the artists themselves.

I'm not talking about Napster's obligation - legal or otherwise - to do anything. I'm describing - NOT commentating on - their decision to do something that a sizeable number would find morally objectionable, i.e. pay killers.

Rayd8or 19:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Billboardnaps.PNG

Image:Billboardnaps.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 08:15, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Napster logo.png

Image:Napster logo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 00:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Added Napster To Go compatible devices chart

Added December 15, 2007 by dazada.

World view - biased to US service

The page makes numerous references to DRM free downloads without pointing out this is only available in the USA. Please can we remember that people speak English outside the USA?? Halsteadk (talk) 23:01, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Napster "Services"

If someone has more sources relating to the recent take-over, the Services section should probably be revamped to indicate whether the services listed are still accurate after the rhapsody merge. My guess would be not but I don't have any sources saying either way at this time. Wickedjacob (talk) 17:48, 21 May 2012 (UTC)