New File Sharing Networks 245
An anonymous reader sends in: "Most readers of slashdot have been following the exploits of the RIAA and their attempts to shut down Napster, KaZaA, Morpheus, etc. In response, it appears some live music fans have taken things into their own hands and started new file sharing networks made exclusively for trading live recordings of bands that allow that sort of thing. The main player, RNL has reached version 1.0, features a distributed architecture, supports linux, and is even GPLed. Another peice of interesting software is Furthur. Though still only in beta, Furthur has cool features like allowing a user to piggy-back another user's download to reduce the load of the uploader."
WinMX rules! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:WinMX rules! - Problem (Score:1)
Windows 95/98/ME/NT/2000
Internet Explorer 4.0 or above if running Win95/NT
Pentium 166 w/ 64MB ram or better recommended
What about us *nix users??
Re:WinMX rules! - Problem (Score:2)
The best ability of the client is that it can be used to connect to any opennap server.
While not handeling segmented downloads, it does let you rank searches by bit-rate and the like.
This seems to be the thing that lacks in other clients. This way my draw to Napster, but WinMX is IMHO the only client which compares. Why shouldn't it? It's based on opennap... an obvious napster cloned protocol.
Re:WinMX rules! - Problem (Score:2, Informative)
Furthernet.com - SLASHDOTTED! (Score:2)
Quoted from www.furthernet.com:
Ack... Furthur's been slashdotted!Our slogan is now: "We should have used Apache!"
Well, d'uh.
When I saw the IIS Server Busy error, they lost all their credibility with me.
Re:Furthernet.com - SLASHDOTTED! (Score:2)
oh, come on! what is this, the Inquisition?! i am so sick and tired of this "anyone who uses Windows is an idiot" dogma, which is why this is the first time I have been to Slashdot in months.
Nope, not true. In fact, I think M$ still has the best compromise between GUI and features and available software. I run Windows 2000 on my main desktop machine; believe me, I'll be running *NIX as soon as KDE has the very few remaining things that I need it to have. (KDE is *so* pretty.)
However, running Windows 2000 on a routable IP addess is dangerous and irresponsible for Handsome Hubby to surf the net, let alone for someone to actually serve pages.
You'll be pleased to note that the machine from which I am typing this does not run IIS, and has an IP address of 192.168.0.1.
It's like a Corvair: the only safe way to drive it is in slow little circles in a parking lot.
if that's all you ever have to contribute, you must be a real putz.No, that's not all that I have to contribute. Though I am a real putz.
VMware costs $500 (Score:2)
VMware [vmware.com] is a good solution for those windows apps you can't let go
So instead of letting go of your Windows apps, you let go of your money. VMware Workstation costs $300, and Windows 2000 Pro for VMware costs $200 [vmware.com] plus the connect time to download the service packs. How again do you prevent people from cracking or infecting your box while you download from Windows Update? On the other hand, a year of TransGaming [transgaming.com] costs only $60.
I haven't tried to run WinMX with WINE yet. Has anyone?
According to CodeWeavers' app database, most features of WinMX work [codeweavers.com], but you need a copy of Windows to run the installer.
Re:VMware costs $500 (Score:2, Informative)
Actually, the VMware Express package is still available for download, and the license is a lot cheaper (around 50$, IIRC). Although it will only run Windows98 (and only one virtual machine at a time), that's enough for most Windows apps - and who doesn't have a copy of Windows98 lying around...
According to CodeWeavers' app database, most features of WinMX work
Still, I haven't talked to anyone who got it to work...I'd be interested!
Re:WinMX rules! (Score:2)
The main problem, and the reason why I "left" them was as NewbieSpaz points out, there's no *nix client.
Etree? (Score:5, Informative)
Haven't these guys heard of etree.org [etree.org]? Etree has been around for a few years, and exists to allow the trading of lossless recordings of live shows from bands who allow trading.
Its not p2p, mostly ftps and burn + post cds, but it has been there for some time. Loads of good shows too :)
furthur was created by etree members (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Etree? (Score:4, Interesting)
Also, many may not have heard of SHN vs. mp3 (debates for or against these 2 can cause a war), but SHN is a lossless compression of a WAV file, and it compresses the wav file approximately 50%. This is compared to mp3's where they are lossly compressed about 90%, but it throws out information in the original wav.
A lot of the hard-core collectors of the live music refuse to collect mp3's due to the loss in quality from original wav->mp3, so that's much larger files that are dealt with when trading the live music. That causes a major strain on the bandwidth, and therefore makes B+P's a prominant figure in the live music trading world.
MP3 is "lossy," but so is PCM (Score:3, Informative)
many may not have heard of SHN vs. mp3 (debates for or against these 2 can cause a war), but SHN is a lossless compression of a WAV file, and it compresses the wav file approximately 50%. This is compared to mp3's where they are lossly compressed about 90%, but it throws out information in the original wav.
For one thing, FLAC [sourceforge.net] performs a few percent better than SHN and has a more free license. For another, tests performed by r3mix.net [r3mix.net] have shown that it's possible to encode MP3 at a variable bit rate centered about 192 kbps and lose nothing audible. (Whether this is legal under the Fraunhofer patents is a different story.) MP3 and Ogg Vorbis produce significant quality loss in only the following situations: 1. low bit-rate operation, 2. crappy encoders, and 3. repeated conversions of wav -> compressed -> wav.
A lot of the hard-core collectors of the live music refuse to collect mp3's due to the loss in quality from original wav->mp3
What about the loss in quality from analog->wav? It's negligible [pineight.com], but it's still a measurable loss.
usenet (Score:3, Interesting)
How Long (Score:4, Insightful)
Honestly, is it even worth doign anymore? Have a pure idea, watch it get cracked, then fade slowly to the background like the rest of the companies trying to do this. A sad world we live in today.
Or, maybe I am just jaded on these types of things.
*sigh*
Re:How Long (Score:5, Informative)
You'd think that a group of over 13,000 (that was last I heard a while ago, and with the second related story in a week, there are sure to be many more directed from
The fact is, if someone wants an illegal bootleg, there are plenty of other places to look rather than the etree.org lists. Rather than get flamed and endanger etree.org, those people just go elsewhere for those needs.
Check out etree.org's legal page [etree.org] for more information about policy. After 3 years, there still hasn't been an RIAA shakedown.
Forever (Score:2, Insightful)
I have been using etree.org for 3 years now and it is just
as good as ever. The member stick to only using
taper-friendly bands (phish, grateful dead, allman bros,
etc) and use standard protocols: ftp, email, and irc.
It is a much looser connection than something like napster;
it is really just a mailing list with a bunch of individual
ftp servers. If someone puts non-trader-friendly music,
they are banned from the mailing list for life by the list
nazi.
Yes, it is RIAA-proof.
The only real problem is that there is never enough
bandwidth!
Re:How Long (Score:2, Informative)
Re:How Long (Score:2)
X see's that Y is sending crap... X block's Y in his tables.
A,B,C,D,E,F,G get table from X, without Y. Y get's ignored by most everyone.
Re:How Long (Score:2, Informative)
That won't happen unless someone does something stupid like post these URLs to slashdot.
oh....
Er...how do we control this (Score:4, Interesting)
If they do somehow control it, it'll be interesting to see how the RIAA reacts to this.
Re:Er...how do we control this (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Er...how do we control this (Score:3, Insightful)
They haven't touched Usenet yet (Score:2)
Should they do so (and this applies also to this new network so clearly meant for legal exchange only) than it only becomes too obvious that the RIAA in fact wants to forbid any direct communication between people.
Re:Er...how do we control this (Score:2)
It's a good CYA move.
Re:Er...how do we control this (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Er...how do we control this (Score:4, Informative)
All shows on the Furthur Network are 100% MD5 verified! When users initially share a show, Furthur will run an MD5 verification check, to ensure the file integrity. If any file doesn't check out, Furthur won't allow it on the network
This gives them a lot of control over network content. Don't want something on the network? Pull it's MD5 sum from your database.
Re:Er...how do we control this (Score:2)
It made me wonder if social boundaries would actually make gnutella and the rest less chatty. Like I don't have any movies on my hd nor am I on them to download movies, why should i receive traffic on it?
Problem is if I want to be on multiple networks, I have to have multiple connections. That or tags saying what I have, what I don't and the type of traffic I wish to propagte.
Just food for thought.
RIAA reaction (Score:2)
It's not going to work. When they ruin one service dozens of new ones will be formed.
Anyone tried Furthur? (Score:1)
Wonder if this scares RIAA? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Wonder if this scares RIAA? (Score:1)
Re:Wonder if this scares RIAA? (Score:5, Informative)
Well, the way I understand recording contracts is that the recording company owns the recording, but the band still owns the music. The band rarely gets enough of a cut from the contract that sales hurt their personal bottom line. Huge bands like Pearl Jam, Metallica et al are big enough to negotiate that sort of deal. This is why Lars from Metallica was one of the few artists who cared about Napster. If you'll notice the RIAA, not the artists, is suing people. They claim they are protecting the artists, but they are really looking out for their own pockets.
Most bands dont make money on the record, they make money on the concerts and appearances. Granted, they do make money, but it's usually small compared to what they make from other sources...why else would they tour? The recordings basically serve them as advertisements.
The bands typically own all rights to the music itself (not the recording) and they have the right to allow or disallow fans to record concerts.
Usual dislaimers apply...IANAL, esp a contract lawyer, and have never seen a 'typical' recording contract and am just make observations on what I've heard and read.
Re:Wonder if this scares RIAA? (Score:2)
Even the bigger acts don't always make money. Their revenue is much higher, but so are their costs.
Re:Wonder if this scares RIAA? (Score:2)
Re:Wonder if this scares RIAA? (Score:2)
Re:Wonder if this scares RIAA? (Score:2)
On your girlfriend. Seriously, the heavies are always afraid of frisking women too enthusiasticly. Many larger venues have female security staff also, but even they won't check in your girl's shorts. Socks and lower legs are good, too, since very rarely does anyone get the full police-style patdown. Now, if only someone would make a DAT that looked like a cellphone...
Re:Wonder if this scares RIAA? (Score:2)
Stuff the recorder down the front of your pants. The jocks who work security will not squeeze your package.
Hrmmm.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Really? Even on my blazingly fast 56k dialup connection? If I had 1 person sending me data I could get an amazing 4.5kps while if I had 10 people sending me data I would get
Re:Hrmmm.... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Hrmmm.... (Score:2)
Instead you download from 2 dialup users, and can use your total 52k.
As you scale up higher bandwidths, the increase can be more dramatic because it's harder to find upload capacities equal to your download capacity.
Of course this is with the understanding that your bandwidth at the time is being dedicated to downloading the 1 file.
Doomed (Score:1)
Go ahead, claim that *everyone* uses filesharing for uncopyrighted material. Just at least admit to yourself that it's not true.
Re:Doomed (Score:1)
stuff, haven't seen anything copyrighted there yet.
But it's for trading whole jamband shows. which
people have been doing through the mail for years
with tape trees and with just ftp sites. This is
just adapting it to another medium. And uses all
the much hyped 'advantages' of p2p. It's been
growing consistently so far.
Re:Not doomed at all (Score:2, Insightful)
What I was implying is that the hype surrounding the networks I mentioned above was due to their huge size and popularity; this hype is irrelevant for this network, as it caters for a (relatively) niche market.
I'm sure there's a point in there somewhere...
Re:Not doomed at all (Score:2)
The point is that you need to stop believing the hype.
So you're saying that the revolution will not be indexed?
FileNavigator Rules (Score:2, Interesting)
What about.... (Score:1)
The piggyback feature would be excellent for larger files types.
WinMX (Score:2, Informative)
I get very good results with this. I have extensively subjected it to my "Matmos" test of file sharing programs, and shown it to be as good as kazaa/morpheus.
The main strength of the program is that it has its own p2p protocol, but also allows you to connect to multiple OpenNap servers at once (unlike napigator). If you are patient, you can log onto a sh*t load of servers and get excellent results.
However, there are some drawbacks. The interface is a little buggy (but a little more for the "power" user than morpheus). Also, getting a good list of OpenNap servers into the program can be a real bastard. I strongly advise looking here [trippymx.co.uk] and here [darkservers.net] for solutions to this problem. Also, as the name suggests, there is no linux version
Good old capitolism (Score:5, Insightful)
The music sharing phenomenon is too big to be a fluke. There's a serious market here, and that's what really has the RIAA scared. They know that, at some point, a market will flurish which breaks their members' business model.
Now, I have no exposure to this new network, so I don't even know if it's commercial, but I can assure you that with a demand this large, there will be thousands upon thousands of people trying to figure out a way to turn it to their economic advantage, and I say more power to them! The first key is the fact that there are already bands that want their music recorded live (Phish comes to mind). Next, there are new bands who have nothing to lose by sharing their music.
Given these, I think you could build a base of bands that promote their music (more specifically, their concerts) via a file sharing network. Then, you just have to find a way to brand yourself so that you remove the geeky stigma of file sharing (make it easier to use, get some high-profile musicians to mention that they use it, give it away with low-cost student computers, etc).
This is going to be a really fund decade. I suspect that this particular business will not descend into the kind of deccadence of the current music industry for at least another 5 years or so, but then, perhahps I'm just an optimist.
Re:Good old capitolism (Score:2)
Capitolism? Is that the ideology that wants to put domes on everything?
Sorry, I had to.
Re:Good old capitolism (Score:2)
Burning bridges is bad capitalism (Score:2)
Back to my point.
The RIAA are history. After all, they've had limited positive effect on the artists they are supposed to ultimately serve. Wanna know how an artist makes serious money? They go on a tour. Then again, we need to hear about the artist and be excited about the artist in order to bother seeing the artist live. That's what the music industry has provided - 'till now.
I still buy albums that are genuinely good, but I usually check them out on mp3 first. Maybe I'll stop buying albums and start going to more concerts? They are more memorable than a slice of reflective surface, anyhow!
Re:Good old capitolism (Score:2)
As long as we're exagerating...
1. Capitalism's benefits just happen to be creating wealth and increasing the standard of living, but it's really all about winning!!!
2. Antitrust laws aren't fair, because they punish the winners despite the fact antitrust laws only punish monopolies that conspire to exclude competitiors from distrubution entirely! Anti-trust laws are only around to punishes winners!!! Boo!!!
3. We shouldn't have a federal government, so we can let the states battle it out to become the winner!!!
4. Public institutions shouldn't coddle weak people by providing education and other services when they've been found to be INCOMPETANT!!! They're losers, therefore they should lose!!!
Look at me!!! I'm a winner!!!
Ok... Maybe my email was a bit rediculous on your views, but you started it!!!
If you're looking for anonymity, (Score:4, Offtopic)
Small excerpt from their About page:
Freenet is a large-scale peer-to-peer network which pools the power of member computers around the world to create a massive virtual information store open to anyone to freely publish or view information of all kinds. Freenet is:
- Highly survivable: All internal processes are completely anonymized and decentralized across the global network, making it virtually impossible for an attacker to destroy information or take control of the system.
- Private: Freenet makes it extremely difficult for anyone to spy on the information that you are viewing, publishing, or storing.
- Secure: Information stored in Freenet is protected by strong cryptography against malicious tampering or counterfeiting.
- Efficient: Freenet dynamically replicates and relocates information in response to demand to provide efficient service and minimal bandwidth usage regardless of load. Significantly, Freenet generally requires log(n) time to retrieve a piece of information in a network of size n.
-end excerpt-Current 0.4 version of Freenet is working fine and 0.5 will be released soon, which should be considered as stable for production use.
OS advocatists take note: Freenet has been written with pure Java, so if you can get a Java interpreter for your OS, you can run Freenet. And in this particular case, using Java doesn't always mean the software will run slow. It's all about the implementation.
Frost might be closest to what you are looking for (Score:2)
Problems with Freenet (Score:3, Informative)
But, all these issues don't prevent me from running Freenet. I find it comforting to support anonymity on the internet, like in the old days. It's really not up to scratch for P2P file sharing, though. Never will be.
Frost, on the other hand, seems like a really slick attempt at totally anonymous newsgroups built on top of Freenet. I've run it a few times and like it. It's slow as molasses, but that's not Frost's fault (see above).
Re:Problems with Freenet (Score:5, Informative)
-1 Troll (Score:3, Interesting)
The idea that Gnutella is more scalable than Freenet is laughable. Gnutella employs a broadcast search meaning that every time you search for content in a proper Gnutella network your request can hit thousands of other peers in the network, in Freenet each request will hit at most 25 other nodes.
If you genuinely believe the drivel you have spouted here, I strongly suggest that you do some research [freenetproject.org] before you demonstrate your stupidity again.
Re:-1 Troll (Score:2)
In freenet you have to do an exact "search" to find a key. really, the search function is not really a search function at all. it is the "get me the data assiated with this key" function. If you did your research you would have found this out.
don't forget gnutella is also evolving. Look for recent p2p subjects on
Re:-1 Troll (Score:2)
Gnutella is indeed evolving, towards a Napster-style centralized architecture, and we all know what that gets us.
Re:-1 Troll (Score:2)
Secondly, Gnutella has a TTL option. On average, Gnutella clients have a default hop count of ~7 before they are dropped. In other words, it's not traveling through every node on the network. To get greater scalability, reduct the hop count.
Why not just open shares ? (Score:5, Interesting)
Set up an index server that does this as well as downloads a lists.txt file that has all the songs in your share directory indexed, a shell script on a cron tab to reindex and upload you lists,
FUCK the RIAA and MPAA, they would have to remove network capability from all computers.
Im not trolling Im serious. Make it as grey as possible. There is no way MS / SUN
GREY, GREY, GREY .
Make it about the comanies violationg free speech, not in the lame ass way others have tried, ALSO a point you can sue judges, and cout officers, police etc, IF IT HAS BEEN PROVEN they VIOLATED you basic civil rights, Making people stop sharing whatever they wish I belive is a violation of my free speech. Set up a honeypot service, that only trades uncopyrigthed materials and lie in wait for the RIAA and some overzealous most likey bribed judges, and open fire, first nail the RIAA on hacking attempts, then go after everyone in line.
If the courts become succeptiable to injury as weel, maybe some of this crap would never make it in the first place.
Yes, I have reached karma cap and need no more, please mod this down as needed
Re:Why not just open shares ? (Score:2, Interesting)
not a good battle to fight (Score:2, Insightful)
Then the RIAA would lobby for, and receive, the ability to
have ISP's cut you off. Great.
What is more important is to have bands who allow legal
trading of their live music be more successful than bands
who don't. If you measure success by concert ticket
revenue, bands who allow trading: Phish, the Dead, Metallica, and U2 were among the most successful bands
of the 90's - Phish and the Dead didn't have a single
radio hit and weren't exactly big on MTV.
There is a lot of good legally tradable music available; try
it out.
Re:not a good battle to fight (Score:2)
Britney fans would be confused and angry if she explored new variations of her songs on stage ("that's not the way the song goes!"), whereas Phish fans don't want to hear a perfect recreation of a CD track.
Bands that Allow music trading (Score:1, Informative)
It even works for Hillbilly music. Check out www.bluegrassbox.com for an unbelieveable (hundreds of gigs) resource of extreemly high quality audio files in shn format.
And remember, Friends don't let Friends use MP3!
Furthur is great - RNL? Nothing. (Score:2, Interesting)
etree.org is okay, but it is just a listing of ftp sites when you get down to it. Yes, it is organized well and has lots of other info, but when you get down to it, just ftp sites.
The other major player in the live music scene right now is direct connect and shnapster - this is a live music hub using direct connect software, and it works well.
Furthur is the easiest to use with the coolest technology. Let's hope it takes off a bit more and continues to be as stable as it is.
Piggybacking? Hrm... not really. (Score:4, Informative)
Though I am no byte-level expert, this isn't really anything new or its misleading. What this seems to refer to is how the traffic would be routed. IE, if "Joe" has live Pearl Jam and 3 people request it, the network is smart enough to take bytes from people farther along in the download. Even then, thats more load-balancing.
Otherwise, this is no different from any other P2P filesharing mechanism where files naturally propagte from a source and are eventually downloaded from other nodes. Still, if your network were *smart* enough to resend packets as little as possible (IE, if the network would multicast concurrently-requested packets) then this would be leaps-and-bounds above current P2P.
How do they distinguish... (Score:2, Redundant)
These just looks like yet another crop of well-intentioned systems that are openly inviting abuse. Whether that is the true intention of the developers, with an honest-sounding mission to cover their asses, we really can't speculate... yet.
We shall certainly see, though, once the RIAA inevitably turns its attention to these new networks.
MD5 Checking & illegal uploads (Score:5, Interesting)
As far as illegal uploads are concerned, there is a list [furthurnet.com] of the bands and material types that are currently allowed. I haven't tried this app yet, I will as soon as I get off work, but I would imagine that client communicates with a centralized server to check MD5 sums and also check filenames so the only way to actually put up a illegal file for sharing is change its name to something like 11.29.98-Phish-David-Bowie03.shn and post it as a new file so a MD5sum is created. BTW my domain, http://www.phataudio.org was originally an old school phish mp3 site ;)
Filename checking? Why? (Score:3, Informative)
I would imagine that client communicates with a centralized server to check MD5 sums and also check filenames so the only way to actually put up a illegal file for sharing is change its name to something like 11.29.98-Phish-David-Bowie03.shn and post it as a new file so a MD5sum is created.
Why would one even need to look at the filename? Calculate the md5 signature, look it up in the database, and if you find a match, you're good to go, regardless of the filename. An md5 signature is 16 bytes long, that's the same length as an IPv6 address, the kind they describe as being sufficient as allowing every atom on earth to have its own I.P. address. Shouldn't it be vanishingly unlikely that someone could alter a piece of music so that its md5 matches with something previously registered?
That's assuming that someone is actually checking out these files before entering md5's into the database, I guess. Is the safety factor just based on the fact that you won't approve a filename that doesn't match the known list of acceptable bands? I suppose if you can't search for something illegal based on name that it doesn't matter in some sense whether it is in the system or not..
So Much Music, So Little Time (Score:4, Informative)
It would be quite sad to see
Re:So Much Music, So Little Time (Score:2)
2. The md5s are not checked against a central database. They are packaged into a text file that is distributed with a file set. Furthur will not allow you to share a file set until all the files check out through md5.
3. The central server has information about what artists are ok to trade across the network. This does not prevent someone from creating a new client that ignores the central server and allows non-taper friendly bands, but it does limit liability of the central server.
Some members of the etree server team have been involved in the development of furthur since the beginning (thanks Mike!) so, as another person asked, yes, etree has heard of it.
etree will continue to be ftp centric but Furthur is the first p2p app that meets the requirements for etree, that is: free as in speach and beer, no banner ads, no money changes hands anywhere.
Tom A.
http://db.etree.org
P.S. Etree was founded in the summer of 98 so it would be hard to have used it for 4 years
Welcome to RNL! (Score:4, Funny)
Would you like to install xGator? xGator allows you to fine great deals on products specifically tailored to you!
[ ] Yes [*] No
installing RNL-1.0-01a.rpm.....
installing xGator-2.4.1....^C^C........
modifying
modifying
Congratulations! RNL has been installed!
some other info (Score:4, Informative)
One system the author fails to mention is Circle [monash.edu.au], which uses a decentralized hashtable system., more about it at his system is in a pdf slideshow [monash.edu.au] he'll be giving at linux.conf.au [linux.conf.au]
My favorite quote from his page: "FastTrack (aka Kazza/Morpheus) is kind of like trying to optimize a bublesort", which leads me to believe he has a regular quicksort at hand. (actually he does claim O(n log n) seachs, so its about right)
Also to note are Chord [mit.edu] and GISP [jxta.org] which seem to use simular schemes, where Chord is pure acadamia (someones masters thesis). GISP is an implementation of something from JXTA, suns p2p framework.
Re:some other info (Score:2)
Re:Hash Table system or Quicksort? (Score:2)
peer1 [0x001] -> peer2 [0x05] -> peer3 [0x08]
i'm 99% sure it doesn't work like a standard hashtable, i think the hashs are just for generating sortable keys, but i could be wrong.
i compared it to a quicksort, because the author compared FastTrack to a buble sort [O(n^2)], wheres his seemed to be the same as a quicksort [ O(n log n) ]
-Jon
Where is the RIAA and distributers? (Score:4, Insightful)
Why doesn't the RIAA come out with their own damn P2P?
It could be fully under their control. They would be able to block certain songs, and maybe only let certain 'hot' singles out. Most of all, this would give them stronger legal basis when fighting current P2P companies and networks. They can point to their own network saying they own all rights to distribute their music, and thus other programs are violating their own legal market. Their refusal to distribute music electronically has hurt them more than anything else. We 'steal' music online, because there isn't one good for-pay network out there.
But, of course we still don't buy into the fact that P2P has hurt music sales. I believe one problem is the fact that a average CD costs $15! When I was still paying for music a CD usually cost $12.99 - if it was $15 I wouldn't buy it. I was shocked to see "SALE!" signs over CD's at Media Play reading in the upwards of 15-16 bucks.
But by their own account P2P saves the Recording Industry money. They haven't admitted this out loud, but read this from their website: [speaking on why the price on a CD isn't 30 cents]
Then come marketing and promotion costs -- perhaps the most expensive part of the music business today. They include increasingly expensive video clips, public relations, tour support, marketing campaigns, and promotion to get the songs played on the radio. For example, when you hear a song played on the radio -- that didn't just happen! Labels make investments in artists by paying for both the production and the promotion of the album, and promotion is very expensive. New technology such as the Internet offers new ways for artists to reach music fans, but it still requires that some entity, whether it is a traditional label or another kind of company, market and promote that artist so that fans are aware of new releases.
Huh? Makes sense... kinda'. But when I search for an artist I find all sorts of new songs. Many of which are great, but never make it to the radio.
If the RIAA adapted the Fast Track technology [and of course make other than Windows clients] they could promote their own music on that main page. They could even tag certain songs as "hot" or "new".
I mean, they can iron out the details, but considering they've got loads of cash. They've got the marketing minds that brough us O-Town and the like. Why can't they put this together?
Why are we hard at work marketing their songs? Why are we using our bandwidth and time? Why are we donating our computers to distribute music? Why are we bothering with P2P?
Simple: It works. We've found a better way. It's not free music. It's because they refuse to step into the year we live in.
Wake up RIAA, you can't fight it any longer. Go after the guy pressing thousands of CD's and making money off of your work. Leave us alone, we aren't making a thing. It's wrong to be making cash on their works. It's not wrong to refuse to go back to an old system that is dying quickly.
Every computer today is sold with a CD-RW. Let us do it.
Re:Where is the RIAA and distributers? (Score:2)
Because if it has filters nobody is going to use.
Long emotional question, short factual answer
Re:Where is the RIAA and distributers? (Score:2)
If they offered a service where I can download an mp3, ogg, etc, with unlimited rights to those songs [no wma] - that would be a start.
I don't want to sit here typing out a huge plan, it's not my job. But if they offered a 'premium' service where you can download any song, any full album, many music geeks would pay up. Not everyone wants everything for free.
If they had a free service where all the search results are displayed, but only their 'hot' songs could be downloaded - that would be a start. Let me get the latest Britney Spears hit for free. If I liked it, I'll pay for the rest.
Furthermore, they can make songs available which there is no market in making more CD's. Cd's that are 'out of print' would be a huge draw for consumers.
Sure, there are people out there that want free, illegal, music. But plenty of people just wished we could get music legally, and cheap.
If they had the P2P program they could advertise there [with restraint]. They could promote what they wanted, and they could best develop a plan which provides a fair system to us, and them.
They do have rights to.
{and imalamer goes back to search for mp3s}
Re:Where is the RIAA and distributers? (Score:2, Insightful)
Then come marketing and promotion costs -- perhaps the most expensive part of the music business today. They include increasingly expensive video clips, public relations, tour support, marketing campaigns, and promotion to get the songs played on the radio. For example, when you hear a song played on the radio -- that didn't just happen! Labels make investments in artists by paying for both the production and the promotion of the album, and promotion is very expensive. New technology such as the Internet offers new ways for artists to reach music fans, but it still requires that some entity, whether it is a traditional label or another kind of company, market and promote that artist so that fans are aware of new releases.
Its not about money, its never been about the money. Think the stars are being starved because of P2P? Watch MTV Cribs sometime, they don't seem to be doing too bad.
Its about control. It isn't that you might hear something new you like off the net and buy the CD, that's irrelevent. You might hear something other than what they want you to hear. They control every aspect of music - when it is played, how often, what songs are singles, and who gets the next shot at stardom. Most telling IMO is that the record studios time the release of new singles and albums based on when the artists last song drops off of the "TRL" program on MTV. If people can simply go out willy-nilly listening to whatever they want, the perpetual butt-raping of artists might have to end.
See, if everyone keeps listening to the same great artists instead of picking up the next diva or boyband that comes down the pipe the record company isn't dealing with wide eyed new stars that they can lock into a contract and squeeze for an insane amounnt of money. They are dealing with artists who've been around the block and won't sign anything just to avoid the risk of being turned away.
Re:Where is the RIAA and distributers? (Score:2)
It's also about distribution rights. Not the record company, but the stores, the CD makers, etc.
But please let's not blame MTV for bad music. They take it up the a** for the RIAA a lot, but plenty of what you see if based on what you buy. People buy crap.
Look at MTV2. They represent consumers better. The range of music is greater and barely do I see 'boybands'.
RIAA and MTV didn't invent boy bands, we did. They just laugh at us and collect the dough.
Re:Where is the RIAA and distributers? (Score:3, Informative)
Think of what studio time must cost to have a five-man band and all the people involved. Its not just the band, a recording engineer and a producer. There's loads of other engineers to mic everything, a couple of guys on the console, producer, roadies, catering, not to mention the time to rent the studio equipment. Then there's the guys involved in the mixdown (producer, engineers) and the equipment time. Mastering, etc etc. All expensive, equipment and people intensive.
Production and distribution, as has been stated elsewhere, is a buck or two per disc.
Re:Where is the RIAA and distributers? (Score:2)
The majority of it, by RIAA's words, is marketing.
That's the thing. With the internet they can slash their marketing costs in half. Word of mouth, the biggest seller of music, has been expanded a thousand times by the use of the 'net.
Re:Where is the RIAA and distributers? (Score:2)
A free service with very few files.
A cheap service for 'hits'.
A premium service for out of print.
A crazy mad service for anything you want.
Should they offer full CD's? Not to everyone who pays a few bucks a month.
The point is, if the system makes sense: People will pay. They don't want to steal, but we.. er they have to because the current system is fsck'd
Re:Where is the RIAA and distributers? (Score:2)
Paid back you mean. The front money is paid by the recording company. Studio time, technicians, session musicians, consumables (food, media, office supplies, etc), equipment all costs real money RIGHT NOW, not later on when the album sells a million copies. It's not unrealistic for a record to cost $1m to make. That doesn't excuse the profiteering of the record companies, but it does mean that if you want to get cheaper albums you need to cut the costs of making the record in the first place. Less dope, hookers, and hush money might help.
Re:Where is the RIAA and distributers? (Score:2)
The only thing that gives them "power" is the fact that they control the distribution of quite a lot of music. If they were to let people download MP3s of their songs, those people would be able to pass the MP3s to their friends. They'd lose "physical" control of the music. (Physical in this sense meaning who the file goes to.) Nevermind that MP3 rippers, P2P apps, and CD burners already have loosened this control.
If the RIAA charged even a nominal fee for the MP3s, the fee would be "shared" by friends. (E.g. Say the fee was $10 a month. Four friends and I could get together, register under my name, and split the $10 a month, paying only $2 each instead of $50 combined.) Thus they'd lose monetary control. Nevermind that those same MP3 rippers, P2P apps, and CD burners can turn a $15 CD into 5, 10, or even 50 CDs to pass along to your friends.
The RIAA execs look at the Internet and see a swarming mass of music pirates nipping at their heals. Yet even they can't discount that there's money to be made online. That's why they're trying to come up with a means of controling online content.
(Ok, time to step out of those RIAA shoes)
Of course, the record execs should realize that they could *gain* control via an online music service. If done right, the service would reduce the reason to pirate music. (Why pirate that $18 CD when you can buy it online for $5?)
As the public relied more and more on their distribution services, less and less people would sign on to P2P apps to trade music. Thus less and less music would appear on the P2P networks.
And from a PR standpoint, they could be seen as being "pro-public" instead of being seen as control freaks who want to restrict how the public listens to music so they [the execs] can maximize their profits. And the subject of fair payment of artists would be much easier to sweep under the rug. Let's face it, Joe Q. Public really doesn't care whether or not Britteny Spears is getting fairly paid for her music so long as he can download it off the 'Net. (This isn't to say that the RIAA's treatment of artists should be swept under the rug, just that it's in the RIAA exec's best interests for it to be. After all, less money to the artist means more in the exec's pockets.)
So they *should* make a P2P app, but they *won't.* (Or if they do, it'll contain so many built-in "control" features that it will be much less useful than a copy of the latest P2P program.)
Re:Where is the RIAA and distributers? (Score:2)
I don't pay that price.
I have however seen music CD's that cost over $500, but that is mainly because they are 'rare'.
I listen to streaming audio, radio, etc.
I refuse to support their devilry.
Slightly OT: Kazaa locks out Linux clients...? (Score:2, Interesting)
It seems Kazaa is locking out Linux clients from connecting to their network. I know the network was down due to their recent sale to another company, but now the Windows clients work (apparently), but the Linux client remains unlinked from their download pages, *AND* existing clients cannot connect.
Oh well. The gift project (http://gift.sourceforge.net/ [sourceforge.net]) appears to be coming along nicely, so screw Kazaa. :p
Windows (Score:3, Informative)
There's an Open Source project hosted on Sourceforge [sourceforge.net] called Gnucleus [gnucleus.net]. Here is the project page [sourceforge.net].
It supports multiple hosts download, so if you were an user of Xolox [xolox.nl], but want a client that development still continues and you want to get those large files using multiple connections, get it now. Sadly, download of partial files from other hosts is still not possible (since there's no consensus from the Gnutella protocol developers about how this should work).
Gnucleus even has a LAN mode, so you may run it to share files over your network that has locked ports or net access blocked (great for colleges!).
Finally! (Score:3, Interesting)
P2P for B? (Score:2)
Like instant messaging, most of the services are created with home users in mind. That means they lack the enterprise-strength management and security features needed by business.
Trying to use MSN Messenger (for example) inside our organization allows connections to the outside world. Same thing with the Fasttrack file sharing systems.
Has anyone used IM or P2P successully in a business? What did you do to keep the system secure, and how did you manage it?
These technologies are awesome and it's easy to see how they could benefit business.
Jibe and Onion Networks (Score:3, Insightful)
My employer, Onion Networks [onionnetworks.com], is focused on building enterprise content delivery solutions using P2P. 2002 is off to a great start for us as companies are immediately seeing the value of P2P for cutting costs and increasing reliability within their networks.
--
Justin Chapweske, Onion Networks [onionnetworks.com]
May have to check this one out! (Score:2)
As someone that runs one (Score:5, Interesting)
REM has a kind of blind-eye mentality toward the sharing network, so long as what is being shared is live or unreleased tracks. As well, we allow sharing of other bands which support this mentality (Wilco, Pearl Jam, Patti Smith, Radiohead, U2, etc).
A lot of the files are sourced by someone running a free FTP server (called ThinkTankDecoy, which makes sense if you know REM history). People download from that server and it permeates through the shared server.
Ice Magazine recently ran a feature on our sharing system, a U2 one and Pearl Jam. Here's a quote:
"At www.murmurs.com, www.fivehorizons.com and www.u2bloodredsky.com- three unofficial but overt REM, pearl Jam, and U2 sites- one can easily nevigate past message forums and band news to locate mp3 concerts uploaded by fans. The U2 site is set up like a database, and provides tips for people un familiar with PTP. The REM site requires user registration, and directs how to install its own custom file-swapping software. It also recently featured an exclusive interview with guitarist peter Buck. when told that both a rare 1980 show and thhe entire, unedited portion of the recent MTV "Unplugged" broadccast had been posted to Murmurs.com, he replied "I like the fact that we've done this huge mountain of work, and that every now and then I'll find a bootleg of some 85 German tv show...."
Ice Magazine is maintstream industry press.
Considering the size of U2, PJ and REM, its nice to see that at least some big bands don't listen to the RIAA's squawking.
Ethan
linux p2p Issues (Score:4, Insightful)
After dabbling in p2p for a bit. I found PHEX [sourceforge.net]worked for some large files. However I found all the p2p client/servers had a few things problematic about them.
'Piggy-backing' would be nice, but reliabe would be better. In the end it has a ways to go. Large files are the biggest problem.
Furthur solves most of those problems (Score:3, Informative)
Furthur does md5 checking to group together the files, and once you start downloading it looks at md5's to figure out what it needs to download. AFAIK, All internal file identification is done by md5, and not by file name.
Of the ones that did multi-home download, none ever kept trying to find sources for the files in progress (enhancment/feature?).Furthur will look for other sources every 15 minutes (or whatever you set it to). If you start a download, and the guys you are downloading from all leave, you can just let it sit in the Partial tab. Come back in a few days (or whatever), and the show will probably be fully downloading. You never have to do anything after you click "download".
My biggest beef with all of them is that none could continue a d/l that had stopped. So every time it re-started it would start at the beginning.
Furthur can do this of course. It can piece together downloads from multiple people who already have the file, and even from others who are currently downloading. And if the download is interupted, it will pick up where it left off when a source becomes available.
Only a few of them could resume searching/downloading if the client died(or I killed it) (gtk-gnutella could save the d/l requests)
Furthur can do this, too.
Spammage - you could do a exact title serch, and get hacking info, or porno or ... well you know what I mean. Heavans forbid if any commercial company really got serious about it.
Well, furthur is still dependent on what people put in the file descriptions, so if someone wanted to put a bunch of spam in there, they could. I haven't seen that happen yet, though.
-Mike
PS I'm not afiliated with Furthur in any way, other than as a satisfied user
Technical details? (Score:2)
Re:Must...get...multicast...working! (Score:3, Informative)
Multicast is not panacea though, because it is not very widely deployed on the Internet, and since there is no caching in Multicast, all of the receivers must be downloading near the same time to realize the bandwidth savings...So in many ways P2P caching has advantages over multicast, which is why we do both.
--
Justin Chapweske, Onion Networks [onionnetworks.com]
Re:RNL - To big. (Score:2)