Well, that is bad news. My desire is to use Napster *instead* of continuing to build my CD or now my ripped-CD collection. I have enough music to take along when I travel, but I want Napster for sampling music I would probably never buy (but if I discover something great than I will, generating more sales) and for listening at home to music I would buy but that is a real bargain at $10 a month.
Having said that, I would NOT use Napster to buy music that has all these strings attached. It's so easy to find any CD on Half.com usually at the same $9.99 or cheaper price as Napster, and rip it with unfettered rights, and even resell it for slightly less for an overall outlay of maybe $5 per CD? So the Napster model still doesn't work for buying music. Not only that, but the poor artist gets nothing when a CD is bought and sold through several hands, leaving ripped copies behind. To me, this is what goes on in the real world. So, Napster (really, the industry) needs to be more, not less, DRM-friendly to the consumer so that's it's "cheaper" to buy a *usable/friendly* song on Napster than it is to buy a used CD with no restrictions on ripping. That has to mean cheaper costs, but even more than that greater digital rights to the purchased music, like being able to change the location of the track, the file tag information, convert the format, and analyze the audio, all the things I can do with the $5 used CD.
Of course the big tradeoff that's a given with Napster is that I'm stuck with only 128k quality. My own collection is at least 160K wma