Help wanted: CTO at Warner Music. 180
Gill_Bates writes "It looks like Warner music group are looking for a CTO. I'm intrigued by the sentence that reads "Builds prototypes and evaluates alternatives for on-line music delivery, P2P warfare, copy protection, etc." " How many job descriptions include the phrase "Warfare"?
Well... (Score:1)
Possibly when you join the Army? Hmmm... Easier to join too!
Re:Well... (Score:1)
Re:Well... (Score:1)
Me and the most powerful force on the internet, it's users. We seem to always have our way.
Lots (Score:5, Funny)
If Donald Rumsfield is your boss, the answer would be "All of them."
Re:Lots (Score:1)
Re:Lots (Score:2)
Did I miss a SlashThought update ?
Re:Lots (Score:2)
Re:Lots (Score:2, Informative)
it's a job (Score:4, Insightful)
It's time for the mucichians to wake up and understand they can do their own distribution. - The time for the big record labels are numbered. Soon they will wanish in a fading cloud of historydust. And the no-talent marketingdroids that claim they know what the "market" want will be no more....
Yes, I have an utopian dream, help me get to it.
Re:it's a job (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:it's a job (Score:4, Interesting)
And yet I still think that the US patent system is horribly broken and that the music and movie industry are on the wrong path and that they must be stopped walking it.
Your point being?
Re:it's a job (Score:3, Insightful)
You don't need to be opposed to the concept Intellectual Property to recognize how screwed up our system is. I support O-S/Free Software, run Linux, oppose software patents, and dislike Microsoft, and yet at work I'm one of the only ones speaking out against our rampant piracy of Adobe and MS products.
Re:it's a job (Score:2, Funny)
do not subscribe to the Slashdot libertarianism
It's Slashdot socialism, not libertarianism. [I'm not a libertarian, but if I was, I would be insulted at the accusation. :) ]
Re:it's a job (Score:2)
I don't think it forms any coherent political ideology, but then again neither does libertarianism.
Insofar as slashdotism is about eliminating inequalities of wealth with respect to intelectual property it could be called 'socialism'. Although I don't think that Robert Owen would have seen it that way.
Insofar as slashdotism is the unfettered persuit of self interest it is libertarian.
The problem is that the essence of libertariaism is the rejection of all social obligations. As Margret Thatcher once said in one of her loonier moments 'there is no such thing as society'. Slashdotism is all about community and so I don't think that it is libertarian.
Re:it's a job (Score:5, Insightful)
Insofar as slashdotism is the unfettered persuit of self interest it is libertarian.
Libertarianism is not "unfettered" pursuit of self interest, it's the "fair" pursuit of self interest where everyone has a level playing field. Of course, "level playing field" is a loaded statement, since many people believe that the government should "level" the field through a lot of artificial means. But that's a debate for another day. I will say this: contrary to popular opinion, Libertarians are NOT for monopolies, and most support action where it's warranted. [aside: probably few think Microsoft is warranted, and I would probably agree]
Slashdotism often wants to take from the producers of society and give it to everyone else. That's socialism.
The problem is that the essence of libertariaism is the rejection of all social obligations.
Once again, although I don't subscribe to Libertarian philosphy in all its "beauty", I have to defend them on this. Libertarians believe very strongly in social obligations -- through neighbor to neighbor obligations, not government to neighbor. The government forcibly taking from one person to give to another breeds resentment in the takee, and the faceless nature of it breeds dependency on the taker. Not to mention the extreme inefficiency. For these reasons, charity should be done voluntarily and locally.
Slashdotism is all about community
To some extent; OSS is often about community. But don't fool yourself that stealing music, software or patents is about community. That's about blatent "gimme gimme gimme for free".
Re:it's a job (Score:2)
One cannot steal music, software, or patents - only the physical devices on which these things reside. Hasn't the IP vs. physical property distinction been drilled in our heads on
One also cannot justify robbing someone of just compensation for their work, but the trick is in defining what "just compensation" is. It's somewhere in a spectrum from the inherent joy one gets from producing creative works (the "gift economy" model) to getting potentially infinite monetary compensation for one unit of someone else's labor (the RIAA's dream). I'd personally like to see more
Re:it's a job (Score:2)
People don't seem to have any trouble working on building weapons of mass destruction. And for that matter, folk who really follow the Ayn Rand philosophy of 'serve your own self interest, bugger everyone else' should not have any trouble working for Saddam Hussein, let alone the RIAA.
I think I got headhunted for this position last week. I get a lot of headhunter calls, most are just trawlling for any engineer, this one had prepped. She had either got a copy of my resume somehow or someone had done a web search and put it together.
Now, I have consistently argued against Napster and its ilk. But I would not take a position of that type unless I had full control over the strategy and it is clear that they see combatting the P2P threat in technical terms and not psychological terms. Confrontation with your customers is a stupid tactic.
Re:it's a job (Score:1)
What are you waiting for? (Score:2)
All the enablers are there ready to be exploited. You will need an economic model to make it work, but how hard is it to compete with standard recording contracts for artists? To pay artists, ask for money just like NPR and come up with a formula to distribute the wealth. RIAA members are only interested in the million+ sellers anyway. Also, there is no reason not to charge a royalty for companies that want to actually make and distribute CDs with cover and label art, etc.
With all the industry players trying to piss off their customers with DRM, it shouldn't be hard to make this grow. I'd do it myself, but it isn't my core interest. I know there are lots of you out there who are that interested, and lots more like me who are interested enough to give suggestions and use these services when they become available.
Re:it's a job (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:it's a job (Score:1)
Re:it's a job (Score:2)
That's fine, but under that system almost nobody will be able to support themselves solely through their music. Everyone wants to be onstage, nobody wants to be in the audience, and when every other person on the planet has their own garage band, none of them are going to be making a profit. So don't quit that job at Starbucks, folks.
Re:it's a job (Score:2, Funny)
But I thought that was the job description for a CTO.
Wanted: (Score:1, Funny)
p2p warfare (Score:1)
Re:p2p warfare (Score:2)
Why should they care? They weren't the ones who declared war.
What? (Score:1, Redundant)
[/sarcasm]
Re:What? (Score:2)
It is easy to find someone willing to do a job, harder to find someone capable. Warner is not a technology company, although it is part of AOL which allegedly is. Companies like Warner are most likely to hire senior technical management out of technology companies.
However looking through the AOL Web site it is clear that the job is hardly a top tier technology placement. Although it carries the title CTO there are many CTOs at AOLTimeWarner and this job is in the second tier.
First Let's Kill All Our Customers (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:First Let's Kill All Our Customers (Score:1)
The one I'm most aware of is the Intel commercial (US, I don't know about the rest of the world) which features Moby's music, and it shows a couple of kids getting together to copy CDs. The other one I remember is the Roxio advert about a kid who burns a bunch of CDs and then takes them to the school parking lot and sells them.
Now I could understand if these companies knew that these things were going on in a nudge, nudge, wink wink kind of situation, but these are actually condoning such actions. Well, as the parent poster said, let's watch the war that you know has to occur. Beware of women who pay their rent in dollar bills...
Re: Got little brothers or sisters? (Score:1, Interesting)
I encourage people not to steal music from the labels. I also encourage people not to buy artists music through the labels. Go straight to the source and buy *from* the artist, NOT the cartel.
Good day!
Saw the T-ONLINE (german ISP) advertising ? (Score:1)
From what legal source ??? The *BIGGEST* ISP from germany , from the Phone company, is adbvertising downlaoding copyrighted music/film indirectly !
When you reach that point where carrier advertising more or less pirating then the war is truly lost.
'warfare' (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:'warfare' (Score:3, Insightful)
Shutting down napster was a mistake (Score:2)
With Napster, they had a possible infrastructure for micropayments etc. They also had the possibility of quietly monitoring the activity. Now, they are much more in the dark.
Then again, wisdom and compromise was never something the entertainment industry was very good at.
Re:'warfare' (Score:2)
Not many companies would put 'warfare' in a job descriptions firstly because few are in a mindset that they at war
I don't agree, the term "war" in modern economics, simply means "to be in the presence of opposing force". It is a widely used metaphore and there is even a French school that's called "The school of economical Warfare" [eslsca.fr]
Re:'warfare' (Score:2)
Is this a one way war where they kill p2p users and destroy their equipment or will the users fight back? In most wars you would expect casualties on both sides even if one side is overwhemingly more powerful.
It will be intresting to see what kind of casualties will be inflicted on p2p users and warner music as a result of this war.
Also Most wars tend to expensive I wonder how this war will effect their share price.
my job description did (Score:2)
When I was in the Air Force my job title did. Electronic Warefare technician
but obviously (Score:2, Funny)
Wow, they're doing this overtly? (Score:4, Insightful)
We should all mass apply and
Re:Wow, they're doing this overtly? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Wow, they're doing this overtly? (Score:2)
p2p warfare & faked hashes (Score:2, Insightful)
------------
Also:
Slightly OT, but there are actually two things going on here:
1. Media companies have legal permission to crack into your computer and delete files as long as they tell the gov't about it first. This doesn't give them the legal right to distribute fake files, but that activity wasn't illegal in the first place as cracking into someone else's computer and deleting their files was. I don't know if they've actually done this yet.
2. They distribute fake files on p2p networks with names that suggest they're not fake. The idea is that the fakes are released before real content, fakes spread all over the network, and real content gets hard to find because nobody bothers to delete their downloads that turn out to be fakes.
They can't fake the _hashes_ on files. If they have a rogue p2p client online, they can respond to searhes for a certain hash and try to get clients to download from them, but when legitimate p2p clients see that the bytes coming from the rogue client don't hash to what they're supposed to, those bytes won't be included in the file. The only way they could "fake the hash" is by finding another file that has exactly the same length and hash as the original file but contains different data. I don't know what fastrack/winmx/others use, but gnutella uses SHA1 hashes (or bitprint hashes which incorporate SHA1) which are designed to resist that kind of attack. In other words, if you have file (A), it is easy to find its hash (B), but it is near impossible to find another file (C) with the same hash (B) as the first file (A). Of course, as long as p2p users remain lazy and ignorant and p2p software developers don't develop features that prompt the user to identify and delete bad files, media companies won't have to fake the hash in order to frustrate users.
Re:p2p warfare & faked hashes (Score:2)
No, they don't. While I think that the Berman bill is bad, it does not allow media companies to hack into your computer. It does not provide a safe harbour that allows the *AA to delete or alter any files on your computer.
The purpose of the bill is to create a safe harbour for 'content owners' that use technology to impair the sharing of copyrighted content on P2P networks.
Berman claims that the bill is not supposed to legitimise general attacks on P2P networks. The confusing thing is that I'm hard pressed to think about any attacks on P2P networks that:
1) Is not already legal today (For example, filling the network with bogus Britney mp3s), or
2) Impacts only illegal sharing of copyrighted material instead of killing the whole - or parts of the P2P network itself.
They can't fake the _hashes_ on files.
I'm not up to date on current P2P protocols, so Rambling_Mode=On.
What if the RIAAntiKazaa chaffing servent simply lies about the hash. You can't check that the hash is correct before you have downloaded the file anyway. Besides, with segmented downloading you only need to download one segment of a file from the chaff servent to destroy the file.
If you do SHA (or similar secure hashes) on segments of the file, it would be possible to discard only the bad segments instead of the whole file.
You could create a known_bad list of IP adresses that the RIAA chaffer clients use. Hmm.. If some of the clients connect through dial-up ISPs with dynamic adresses, you might have to blacklist the entire netblock - not nice.
the berman bill and p2p tech (Score:2, Interesting)
attacks on P2P networks that:
1) Is not already legal today (For example, filling the network with
bogus Britney mp3s), or
2) Impacts only illegal sharing of copyrighted material instead of
killing the whole - or parts of the P2P network itself.
The purpose of the bill is to create a safe harbour for 'content
owners' that use technology to impair the sharing of copyrighted
content on P2P networks.
Given this, I think it is arguable that an effective way to stop the
sharing of copyrighted content on p2p networks without imparing
sharing of uncopyrighted works (or copyrighted by those who do not
restrict the distribution of their works) is to delete the files
containing copyrighted works from computers participating in the p2p
network. Since the Berman bill gives them a (somewhat) blank check to
break "hacking" laws in pursuit of this goal as long as they notify
the gov't first, I think they will end up doing exactly that.
However, I really should have been more specific in my first post. I
should have said:
Media companies have legal permission to crack into your computer and
delete files that contain copyrighted content as long as they
tell the gov't about it first.
-------------
What if the RIAAntiKazaa chaffing servent simply lies about the
hash. You can't check that the hash is correct before you have
downloaded the file anyway. Besides, with segmented downloading you
only need to download one segment of a file from the chaff servent to
destroy the file.
If you do SHA (or similar secure hashes) on segments of the file, it
would be possible to discard only the bad segments instead of the
whole file.
My knowledge of what's going on in p2p is limited to the gnutella
network, but here's what's happening right now:
Files are can be searched for by their SHA1 hashes and almost all
major servents support this. Currently, the only thing that the ??AA
could do to inhibit downloading (beyond what I noted in my first post
re: bad files & user laziness) would be to find out the hash of a
good file, and report that they have the file whenever they receive a
search request for it. It a user downloads the entire file from them,
the client program, upon completion of the download, will report an
error since the hash that the file should have does not match the
hash of the downloaded data. Not too serious - just some wasted
downstream bandwidth on the part of the user. This kind of attack
also costs the ??AA mega$ as they are the only source for the file:
non-SHA1-aware clients won't be able to propagate the false hash
reporting and SHA1-aware clients will dump the file as soon as it's
done downloading. In other words, the only thing the ??AA has going
for them right now is user laziness.
Here's what's going to happen in the near future:
The ??AA isn't faking hashes because they (probably) followed the
same line of reasoning. However, faking hashes can cause other
problems. Since SHA1 hashes hash all the data in the file to produce
the output hash, even a small chunk of changed data in the file will
affect whether or not the downloading servent thinks the download is
"good". If the RIAA were to report that they had the "good" file
corresponding to the "good" hash, but send "bad" data when the "good"
file is requested, they could wreak havoc on servents that support
multisource downloading. If a servent downloads even one byte from
one of the ??AA's destructive interloper nodes, trying to download
the file a bit faster by downloading from another source, the SHA1
hash calculated after the download finishes would be incorrect,
killing an otherwise successful download as you mentioned above.
As luck would have it, P2P developers have been trying to enable
partial file sharing (sharing available [downloaded] parts of
unfinished downloads) for quite some time. It turns out that
implementing this technology will render the above attack useless.
Soon, servents will support "bitprint" hashes. A bitprint hash is a
concatenation of the SHA1 hash of a file, and a hash obtained by
using the tiger-tree method. The tiger tree method:
1. Break the file up into equal size chunks. (say, 1MB)
2. Hash each chunk.
3. Concatenate adjacent chunks to make new chunks.
4. Go to step 2.
All of these hashes, done using the Tiger algorithm, form a tree
where each node has two leaves - hence Tiger-Tree. The original idea
was that servents could use this tree of hashes to ensure data
integrity when downloading pieces of a file from multiple hosts.
Since ??AA-trashed data will not hash to what it should, just like
corrupted data, those blocks will be thrown out and re-downloaded
until a good block is obtained from a non-??AA host.
In other words, the ??AA won't be able to corrupt your downloads
unless they out-bandwidth the rest of the p2p community.
There are still two (technical) issues threatening p2p and oddly
enough I think they can both be solved by strong public key
cryptography. The first is fake files - that is files containing
garbage data from the ??AA and misnamed files. The problem,
essentially, is that you don't know if the metadata reported about
the file (title, resolution, length, etc...) is accurate. However,
one of the things I've noticed about online file trading is that
files that appear there, especially movies, are tagged with short
prefixes identifying the ripping/encoding team. "[smr]", for
instance, stands for "shadow movie realm". While rips of apps and
games don't generally have these filename tags, they are generally
distributed as archives containing, along with the program, an info
file of some sort crediting the crackers. The common thread is that
most content is introduced into the network by a small number of
dedicated, talented "teams" that want credit for their work. To me,
this seems like a perfect application of digital signatures. If, upon
release of new content, the block of metadata describing that content
(title, resolution, length, etc, and bitprint hash) were
signed by the release team, then downloaders with the release team's
public key could verify which rips are genuinely what they say they
are, or more to the point, which hashes point to good files. Is it
vulnerable to other people posing as the release team and signing
data with their own keys? Sure, but over time one public key would
develop more "cred" than all of the spoofs and since the release
teams would only sign their own releases, that "best key" would be
accepted as theirs. The best thing is, this whole process can be
automated. Servents can even keep track of key validity (cred) by
themselves simply by asking the user "Is this signed file what it
says it is?" upon completion of a download.
The second issue is eavesdropping and bandwidth throttling by ISPs
(especially universities). This problem can easily be solved by
recognising that an ISP can only safely throttle what it can
identify. If all communications on p2p networks started with a raw
exchange of public keys, the first (for example) 2048 bits of p2p
connections would be different from client to client. For extreme
undetectability, servents could generate new public/private key pairs
for each new connection. All following bits would be encrypted and
unavailable to the ISP. It would seem that this technique would be
vulnerable to a man in the middle attack by the ISP; however,
consider what it would take to execute that kind of attack. The ISP
would have to modify the first (again, for example) 2048 bits of a
connection that it knows nothing about because it just initialized.
While this would gain them access to the unencrypted data stream of a
p2p connection, it would horribly confuse any other software trying
to communicate over the internet. In other words, they can only check
for p2p communications by killing all non-p2p communications. Ports
used for (at least gnutella) p2p are already random, btw.
Anyway, those are my thoughts.
Re:the berman bill and p2p tech (Score:2)
According to the Berman bill: [politechbot.com]
"... a copyright owner shall not be liable in any criminal or civil action for disabling, interfering with, blocking, diverting, or otherwise impairing the unauthorized distribution, display, performance, or reproduction of his or her copyrighted work on a publicly accessible peer-to-peer file trading network, if such impairment does not, without authorization, alter, delete, or otherwise impair the integrity of any computer file or data residing on the computer of a file trader."
It's a get out of jail free card for tampering with the network for stopping copyright infringement, but it does not cover tampering with files on your computer.
It's not a "license to hack [your computer]".
514(b)(1)(A) seems to rule out DoS attacks or any measures that have a serious effect on the sharing of non-copyrighted works on the P2P network.
So.. I just don't understand why this law is necessary, since - if we are to believe Berman's claims that it is only intended as a narrow safe harbour for self-help - it seems like it only leaves forms of chaffing - which should already be legal.
Anyway. If I put on my tinfoil hat, I would suspect a conspiracy between MS, Berman and *AA hiding in the expression "without authorization" combined with the latest EULA changes [bsdvault.net] from MS regarding DRM/Media Player, giving MS the right to disable software on your computer.
It a user downloads the entire file from them,
the client program, upon completion of the download, will report an error since the hash that the file should have does not match the hash of the downloaded data. Not too serious - just some wasted
downstream bandwidth on the part of the user. This kind of attack also costs the ??AA mega$ as they are the only source for the file:
Simple chaffent:
Collect a list of (filename, filesize, hash) we want to fake.
Reply when someone is searching (both name search and hash search).
Allow connect from clients and start serving bogus data.
Disconnect the transmition after a little while.
Add the client IP to a ~30min blacklist (maybe shared by all chaffents).
Don't answer any reconnect requests from that IP as long as it is on the blacklist.
For the user, this should look just like someone that was online for a while and then disconnected. The user will try to resume the download from other sources, but the file is already broken.
In other words, the ??AA won't be able to corrupt your downloads
unless they out-bandwidth the rest of the p2p community.
Or rather - out-search-request-answer if done as above.
This obviously won't work once you start using segment hashes, though.
The problem, essentially, is that you don't know if the metadata reported about the file (title, resolution, length, etc...) is accurate.
[snip explanation]
Sounds like a good approach for ensuring metadata integrity.
Anyway, I get this image of FBI busting someone and discovering the private key of a notorius release group on his computer. This could actually make it easier to track down the really big copyright infringers.
The second issue is eavesdropping and bandwidth throttling by ISPs
Considering that P2P traffic is something like 80% of the total Internet traffic at the moment, ISPs wanting to do bandwidth throttling is not exactly surprising.
In many situations you actually want to do bandwidth shaping in order to keep the network running smoothly. You don't want your P2P traffic to hog so much bandwith that the responsiveness of your interactive SSH sessions go south.
If all communications on p2p networks started with a raw exchange of public keys, the first (for example) 2048 bits of p2p connections would be different from client to client.
Smells like overkill to me, but anyway.
Ports used for (at least gnutella) p2p are already random, btw.
At least the initial connect is to a well-known port, no?
If your ISP really wants to spend a lot of time and resources to track you, they could play man-in-the-middle from the initial connect with the gnutella network. Not that it would ever be worth the effort, but anyway.
Re:the berman bill and p2p tech (Score:2)
Read the very last paragraph I wrote in my original post. ISPs couldn't reliably execute MITM attacks without borking all non-p2p traffic.
How does the gnutella client start to build a host cache without connecting to a well-known source? Or rather, how does it connect to this source without making it possible for the ISP to MITM.
Sorry, I must be low on coffee. X-I It's actually very easy if you distribute a public key with the client.
Anyway, I'd love an URL or two with more information about the future direction of gnutella.
Re:Wow, they're doing this overtly? (Score:2)
No. (Score:2)
No. That's useless and childish. What we all should do is to make sure that all of the audio/video, etc. that we have on our hard drives is what it says it is, and leave your favorate P2P client running CONSTANTLY. They want warfare? I'll give 'em warfare.
That bit about "P2P warfare" is very interesting (Score:2)
If it's all about profits, why didn't they negotiate [seriously] with Napster? If it's all about stock prices and CEO bonuses, why are they openly declaring war on their customers? If it's all about "war", why do they insist on playing a defensive game against P2P (instead of offering competitive non-crippled alteratives)? At frist glance, it looks like they are going on the offensive with the "legalized computer crime" intiative, but it's really a desperate defensive ploy! At first I thought the CTO advertisement was a joke, but after I thought about all the foolish choices the industry has made regarding technology, it all makes sense (in a warped sort of way.)
None of the heavy hitters in the IT industry will want this losing battle on their resumes, so it's a "tier-2" opportunity at best. This is a classic example of an IT job to be avoided:
I view it as the techie equivalent of being Saddam's "Chief of Air Defense". Whoever gets this job is going to be thoroughly outgunned by the "evil ones".
Oddly enough, there is a way for someone to be successful in this job, but it involves more diplomacy and negotiation than technology. The problem to be solved is inside Warner, not outside.
Just swamped with applicants (Score:5, Interesting)
Wouldn't it be fun to apply for this job, and once you're in the interview process, begin espousing pro-P2P views. What if, one after the other, these guys had to confront a parade of rabid, file-sharing geeks with CTO-level qualifications?
Even better, *don't* mention your views until after you've accepted the job. Then work to sabotage Warner's "P2P warfare" efforts. Yeah, that's the ticket.
There's probably enough of you unemployed CTO's out there - who've undoubtedly spent your idle days using Kazaa - to pull of this Ken Kesey-style prank.
Re:Just swamped with applicants (Score:2)
Re:Just swamped with applicants (Score:2)
Re:Just swamped with applicants (Score:2)
This is the way executive hiring works. They'd rather have someone that they're comfortable with.
Re:Just swamped with applicants (Score:2)
When applying for a job at this level, who you know is 98.5% of the fight.
Re:Just swamped with applicants (Score:2)
How about (Score:3, Informative)
"Warfare" (Score:5, Funny)
According to Monster.com, 335 job descriptoins include the phrase "Warfare". You can hold such captivating jobs as:
Re:"Warfare" (Score:2)
It wouldnt be advertized on Hotjobs.. (Score:1)
Perhaps its really them, and they will collect names and home addresses of people to raid... If you know p2p warfare, you MUST be one of those evil people that download.. or god forbid.. share your music..
warfare (Score:2)
How many job descriptions include the phrase "Warfare"?
Soldier, Sailor, Pilot, general, admiral, president, secretary of defense, secretary of the navy, secretary for the army, linux zealot etc etc.
Other industry compared (Score:5, Interesting)
It would appear that Warner is not capable of significant change. And that's easy to understand - Warner is a very old company, stuck in it's way, and hasn't had any ground-shaking innovation in the past 50 years. When you feel like crap, it's more satisfying to "go to war" than to intellegently address a serious issue.
It's kind of like Apple in the early 80's. Apple could have stuck with the comfortable Apple II line, or change. Apple changed and propelled the entire marketplace forward.
It's like IBM in the 90's... it could continue to be a big-iron shop, or change. It changed. IBM is much more of a service oriented company, embrassing the likes of Unix, Linux, and Java. They leveraged their former glory with new innovations.
But remember, like them or not, Apple and IBM have ALWAYS been innovators. Warner is more like US Steel in the 80's. US Steel could have continued to be an old-school steel producer, or change to react to new steel producing innovations happening overseas. US Steel decided to stay the course, and the steel industry in the USA is still plumetting and out-of-control.
Warner has chosen the path of US Steel.
Re:Other industry compared (Score:1)
Re:Other industry compared (Score:2)
Re:Other industry compared (Score:1)
Re:Other industry compared (Score:1)
While I agree with the majority of your post, would you care to elaborate on this point? It's my impression that what happened to US Steel is the same thing that's been happening to the US Textile industry.
1) Overseas labor costs about 1/10th what it does in the US
2) Industrial optimization process technologies have produced high cost/production efficiency, with human labor floating to the top of operation expenses.
If you couple those two factors, it leaves very little room for policy solutions. So what could US Steel have done? What can it possibly do now?
Re:Other industry compared (Score:2)
P2P sells broadband, more profitable than CDs... (Score:2)
Re:P2P sells broadband, more profitable than CDs.. (Score:2)
Re:Other industry compared (Score:2)
At this point, Warner can do one of two things to survive: (1) change their business model, or (2) "go to war" against the many innovations that are making their business model obsolete.
Just what change of business model would you suggest which could allow Warner to survive without going to war against P2P?
Re:Other industry compared (Score:2)
What do you want, someone to say "I have a solution to Warner's troubles!" right here?
No, I just want anyone who claims to have a solution to Warner's troubles to back it up by providing that solution.
They're still in the buggy-whip industry, when we're all starting to buy cars.
Bad analogy. Buying cars isn't illegal. It's more like they're in the sports arena industry, and someone just came out with a device which can print perfect replicas of tickets.
Re:Other industry compared (Score:2)
Whoah, whoah, whoah, Mr. "Bad Analogy" Man.
Seats in a sports arena are finite.
Copies of digital information that can be shared are, for our purposes, economically infinite.
How was yours a good analogy?
Surfing the net... (Score:1)
http://www.job-go.com/Society/Issues/Warfare_and_
Warfare (Score:1, Funny)
With the Bush administration in office, is that a trick question?
Out of context.. (Score:5, Insightful)
"... evaluates alternatives for on-line music delivery, P2P warfare, copy protection, etc."
later I read:
"Analyzes all industry wide technological developments and initiatives related to music and music distribution in an effort to help company sustain its competitive advantage in the music technology marketplace."
Alternatives to P2P warfare. I think they realise its just not cost-effective to have a bunch of people sitting around trying to hack everyone who's running KaZaa.
Looks to me like they want someone to come up with realistic solutions and strategies that will work in the real world. Seems they want to 'Adapt or Die'.
"Requirements
A college degree or equivalent experience is required in engineering, computer science. Specific knowledge and experience in new media and new technologies is required."
Purely speculation: Their old CTO probably favored the old-school 'sue em all' approach, that's probably why he's lining up for food stamps, and why the particular wording of the job offer. Looks like they want a new direction, not to just bump another talking head into the post.
Re:Out of context.. (Score:1)
I take that to mean evaluate different methods of p2p warfare and pick the best one.
Re:Out of context.. (Score:1)
HAH, take that all you "a degree is a requirement to get a good job" people.
You've been sold a bill of goods. Only idiot HR departments mandate a college degree with no exceptions for technical jobs.
Re:Out of context.. (Score:2)
I seriously doubt that William Raduchel [cioinsight.com] will be needing food stamps anytime soon.
P2P ... (Score:2)
This just shows that the record labels Still Don't Get It.
fake files? how about fake networks? (Score:1, Interesting)
I know where they should recruit (Score:2)
The recording industry as currently constituted is just as obsolete.
I think it'd be a perfect fit.
I'll do it... (Score:1)
I always wanted a job where I wouldn't have to feel guilty about slacking off, being incompetent and generally causing the organisation who I'm working for to collapse...
P2P: Project Mayhem (Score:1)
Seriously, IF this is real then it reveals a major weakness in the industry.
"IF" is an important qualifier because given the MP/RIAA "right to hack", it's certainly possible that the need is real.
However, it is improbable that they would look to the market to fill their need for a P2P "warfare" expert. Hollywood is a place of connections and "I know a guy..." nonsense.
This falls into the "don't pet the sweaty stuff" category regardless of truth.
Chris Uzal, Editor, Cyberista [cyberista.com]
This Does Not Bode Well For The Economy (Score:1, Insightful)
In spite of the present gloom, the Internet isn't going anywhere; it is certain to play a key role in the recovery that is sure to happen. Minor roles will be played by all of the Internet applications that have proven themselves to be useful, practical, and in many cases necessary for business, commerce, and communication. These include email, web, instant messaging, and the ability to easily move data from one individual to another.
Businesses have long been vexed by the fact that Microsoft's Instant Messenger does not interoperate with AOL's and vice-versa. Instant Messaging and P2P systems as systems that will find customers among the business set are still in a state of flux. There are opportunities to take advantage of there, and it is taking advantage of market opportunities that will fuel the recovery of the economy.
However, any startup focused on developing a P2P system that is perhaps designed to fill the current gap created by the failure of the IM apps to interoperate or to use any other business model to succeed will find itself not only facing a difficult economic environment, but also facing the very real danger of having to cope with technological attacks from the RIAA or MPAA.
Thus, we now have a situation where a company that is trying to create a legitimate and valuable P2P system is likely to come under attack by something other than marketplace competition. An entire area of business opportunity has been seeded with landmines at a time when we need it most.
P2P systems are a key part of the suite of must-have applications that will help the internet as a whole bring us out of the recession, and the RIAA has unfortunately positioned itself to fight it.
Legal Liability (Score:2)
Let's send in the slashdot resumes. (Score:1)
Honestly this is a job I would consider doing... (Score:4, Interesting)
I will now pause for everyone to finish going rabidly insane.
OK.
Yes, there are one or two phrases in the job description that are, at least on the fact of them, objectionable to the Slashdot crowd.
My personal concerns about this are whether this is a real CTO job, where there is a person who can set technology direction on behalf of the company, or whether you would be one CTO among dozens, and have no real power to implement changes at any fundamental level.
Unless it's the real thing, it's likely not going to result in anything at all, and you can all stop your paranoid worries. And if it *is* the real thing, and they get someone competent (a big "if"), you can all stop your paranoid worries.
Now look at the big picture: why is the music industry afraid of P2P and other online digitial distribution, when it's pretty clear that the primary use for these channels is for content that they would not usually consider distributing themselves?
My answer to this question is that the eventual results of this technology, if it prospers, is going to be disintermediation of artists and consumers.
There are a number to consequences to this which are -- believe it or not -- generally undesirable, and there are a number of *other* consequences to this which break their revenue models, and damage their ability to continue to do business.
To paraphrase what I think they've realized, "you can't piss in the wind"; it's reasonable for the company to seek alternatives to protecting their revenue model -- and, as a side effect, protect the generally desirable things which come with that revenue model, such as the ability of individual bands to make enough money that they can *be* bands full time, and have a reasonable chance of paying the rent when they are 65 and no longer interesting to their former primary markets. Bands die out because they're old, or because they've lost their social relevence, or their superstar lead singer has died, or any of the dozens of fates which can befall a band. If you have to stay in school for that accounting degree "to fall back on", in the full expectation of "falling back", it *will* effect your ability to make music.
At least Warner is looking out there, and noticing that things have in fact changed out from under them, and that they need to do something, other than just "business as usual".
Actually, there are literally dozens of ways they could deal with these issues technologically; several of them even involve the record companies themselves setting up *real* P2P networks, which don't actually suck for their revenue models, like Napster or GNUtella (the first because of the central control given to a single company, the second because of lack of scalability -- neither because of real piracy concerns).
It's amusing that they've emphasized "Agile development" (corporate code from a particular corporation for "Extreme Programming"). Most likely, they already have someone in mind, and the posting is to satisfy legal requirements.
-- Terry
FYI: I suggest you check Webster's Dictionary (Score:3, Informative)
It means, in this context, "removing the middleman". The original definition is "removal of the intermediary".
-- Terry
Attention RIAA: How to stop P2P (Score:2, Interesting)
Even before P2P, I often wondered why they wouldn't at least publish lyrics on the web so that I could know which song to buy in the record store. Going to the store and singing a few lines of your favorite song to a zit-faced clerk is not the preferable way to buy music.
Maybe whomever they hire for this position will tell them that they are waaaaay behind the times and that's why they're losing profits.
The actual ad (Score:4, Funny)
Location: Inner Bunker, CA; New York, NY
Position Type: Attack
Position Duration: Full-Time 24/7
Warner Music Group
Job Description
Warner Music Group seeks a heavy duty cyborg or mutant preferrably with stealth capabilities, and with desire to kill.
We offer a competitive salary and full benefits package, including, but not limited to, 1 million rounds per month of the finest ATK small caliber ammunition (5.56mm, 7.62mm,
Requirements:
Must obey, specially directive 4, and be tolerant to baby food.
Knowing ED-209 assembly is a plus. Also desirable is experience with flamethrowers and chainsaws.
If you are interested in this position, please submit your resume, including number of manslaughters you're accused of being involved to: acmearmy@warnerbros.com, subject: CTO.
They don't know what they want do they? (Score:2)
Tuned in to the market.... Challenges current way of thinking. Participates in new media forums.
Another Says:
Builds prototypes and evaluates alternatives for on-line music delivery, P2P warfare, copy protection, etc.
Spam (Score:2)
How many job descriptions include the phrase "Warfare"?
Here's one that probably does [ctnow.com].
The xxAAs are using Gestapo tactics? (Score:3, Insightful)
If somebody tried this in person, they'd get shot. Its called self-defense. This is a terrorist act using Gestapo tactics by a group which produces nothing and contributes nothing to society. If YOU tried this, you'd get shot at too.
Now we're going to have to back-up all our data (we'll need to buy lots of CD & dvd burners. Bet they'll love that. And that won't disrupt P2P sites that they are alleging to go after.) Wrecking P2P hosts is not exactly neat and clean. There'll be collateral damage. Somebody's systems are going to get wrecked.
The first time that someone loses corporate data on their servers due to an xxAA attack, the lawyers will have a field day. The activity may have been caused by an employee who was using extra bandwidth in a dubious manner but a company which get its data munged by the RIAA will send the RIAA the bill and about a dozen lawyers to collect their damages.
This will DESTROY the xxAAs. Ripping MP3s might have cost some sales (and I really doubt that,) but this virtual Gestapo tactic will back fire in the worst possible way.
Attacking your clientelle is totally stupid. Beyond stupid. Its suicidal. The xxAAs clients are in for a real shock. The backlast will hit them too.
Imagine a two month stretch where NOBODY buys a CD or goes to a movie of any xxAA member. We all buy for non-members and fuck the membership.
Anf their political friends will hang them absolutely out to dry the first time a government P2P server get reamed.
The xxAAs will be legislated OUT of existence using cyber-terorist laws.
Re:People :( (Score:2, Interesting)
They cannot just "leave you alone" because, for the 400th time, the business model of the music business is that of subsidy.
IOW, 85% of CDs released fail to recoup: to earn back what it cost to make them. Fewer than 5% are profitable. This unmet cost must be shifted onto the backs of other bands, and when one hits, the price to buy it must be raised to cover the loss on the previous 85.
So, to change drastically, as many here simplistically suggest, here's the first step:
In the case of Warner Music..throw 600+ bands out on the street. Violate and void their contracts, pay the staggering legal costs, deal with the hundreds of contract-violation lawsuits, start again with a new business model.
Oh but then, how do they pay their help? They couldn't at first, so, go then they must fire the 25,000 or so people who work for Warner Music.
Ok, now, come up with a way of marketing music that the filesharers like: IOW, give it to them free, or make the cost transparent, such as a MSO (cable company) subscription surcharge. Once Warner makes enough money that way (give it 20 years or so) they can begin to hire back the 25,000 people they had to fire, and start to sign cutting edge bands that might not recoup again.
I suggest that if the labels did what many people think is "a good idea", the outcry over a few hundred thousand pink slips and thousands of newly-unsigned bands might cause a bit more of a ruckus than Warner looking for a CTO to explore distribution alternatives while keeping their bands signed and workers employed.
And please, no "they can distribute on the web!" How many tracks from MP3.com did you buy out of the 67,000 artists there? How many did you even listen to?
Unfortuntely, the whole scenario just isn't as simple as people make out, because they don't know the whole picture. It's easy to suggest massive change for a $40 billion business when you don't know the complete story, is't it?
Re:People :( (Score:2)
so what's the business model you suggest to replace it? the current model has the attractive property that it allows WB and others to speculate on bands because of the subsidy offered by the successfull ones. are you suggesting that web-based distribution can remove the need for this subsidy?
Re:People :( (Score:2, Insightful)
Greedy accountants "speculating" over the next music craze has all but destroyed the industry.
50 years ago, in the early days of rock-n-roll, there was a very loose network of local radio stations operated by young people who loved music. They played what they wanted to play, for people who listened to what they wanted to listen to. Some guy in L.A. might get a phone-call from his buddy in New York, saying "hey man, check out this new Pink Floyd album called Dark Side of the Moon." Next week the DJ gets his hands on the record, listens too it, and by his own volition airs it because it's good.
Nowadays it's all push push push, marketroids and accountants tell DJs what to like, and what to distribute. That my friends, is a broken system.
The wrong people are deciding what we listen to, and only a very select few(I.e. those who don't have a lawyer around to tell them how hard they're getting fucked) manage to get into the industry today. So you tell me, would you rather have:
A) 600 bands a year shoved down your throat, regardless of what they sound like, represent, or say.
b) 100,000 bands available on a P2P network...and you decide who gets in based on music critics you trust, and word of mouth.
Re:People :( (Score:3, Insightful)
lets restate those choices:
- 600 bands a year shoved down your throat,
but each of them with some moderate chance
of being able to make a living from their
music if people like it.
- 100,000 bands available on a P2P network, with
almost no chance of making a living because
there are no effective social networks in
place to allow discovery to take place.
i'd much rather have (b), but neither you nor anyone else has made any serious suggestions how the discovery process is going to work. mp3.com already has tens of thousands of bands listed - no mechanism exists for me to decide if i like any of them. the main mechanism i use these days is to listen to echoes (echoes.org) and check out the echoes website. what mechanism exists to get stuff "released" over p2p into the "forums" or "contexts" where i'll believe its even worth me trying a listening session?i can't disagree with your characterization of the radio business, but almost nobody does! defining the radio business like this isn't the issue - finding a workable alternative to the way it currently works is. and frankly, all the alternatives i've seen (including one that i set up (Equal Area [equalarea.org])) have the implication that the vast majority of musicians that don't draw large crowds to live performances can forget about making a living.
Re:People :( (Score:2, Insightful)
Up until recently the commodity way was fine because the distribution system was so costly...music was recorded onto a magnetic tape, or a record, or a CD using expensive recording equipment...then put on an airplane or a boat...and shipped overseas...those things cost money. Consumers were willing to pay because the value outwieghed the cost. But now that we have the medium to communicate music to almost anywhere in the world cheaply and quickly. We really have no reason to maintain this infrastructure any more.
If some guy vacationing in Indonesia wants to record a native island song, and then release it onto a P2P network, that's great. The whole world just benefitted from that single individual's contribution. Forever. Millions of people doing this produces an incredible amount of content. We have so much music on record now, that it would take several lifetimes to listen to it all anyway.
There are also plenty of amateur musicians(I.e. people with jobs who play during thier off time because they enjoy music) who sound better than any of todays "new" music. But nobody gets to hear them, why?
You and many others are looking for ways of salvaging the old model. But there really is no value-added benefit in the old system. Paying people's salaries costs money, and that means revenue...but why would anyone pay them? What for?
1) Anyone with a PC can create/record music quality that was unheard of as recently has 1970.
2) "Professional" musicians sound worse than many amateurs.
3) Music can be trasported anywhere instantly for almost zero cost.
4) It would take several lifetimes to listen to all the music out there now.
Re:wow (Score:5, Interesting)
Exactly.
Ever heard of a decoy? Someone to take the anger of consumers, someone who isn't recognisably the same as the Warner Music you might be considering buying a CD from?
Do the truth a favour: next time you want to critisize the RIAA, pick one of their member companies as your target instead.
"And Warner Brothers, who represent the Red Hot Chilli Peppers, are campaigning to make it legal to sabotage your computer in the name of 'compliance'"
Re:Sabotage! (Score:1)
But, if you're 60 and readying for retirement...
Or a multimillionaire looking for something to pass your time
Proletariat of the world, unite to kill the RIAA