Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Music Media

Cringely Tries Snapster 2.0 328

Posted by michael from the can't-blame-a-man-for-trying dept.
Fungii writes "Following up from this story last week, here is an update on Cringely's site about the snapster idea. He writes about some of the more interesting reader responses to the idea. Raises some interesting questions."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Cringely Tries Snapster 2.0 More

Cringely Tries Snapster 2.0

Comments Filter:

  • Waittaminute (Score:3, Funny)

    by Jonsey ( 593310 ) on Friday August 01, 2003 @12:23PM (#6589574) Journal
    So... he's writing... about what we said, when he wrote to us... about what he said?

    1.) Write Article
    2.) Get Feedback
    3.) Write Article
    .....

    Ow. I think I've gone cross-eyed. : )

  • I'll be surprised... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by kmak ( 692406 ) on Friday August 01, 2003 @12:26PM (#6589611)
    If this actually holds up in court. An amusing thought experiment though..

    Fair use isn't actually fair.. I don't think RIAA, with all its money and lawyers will let this slip through..

    Though of course, I hope it does..

    • check out my journal everyone and comment (Score:4, Interesting)

      by HanzoSan ( 251665 ) on Friday August 01, 2003 @01:39PM (#6590394) Homepage Journal

      I'd like comments on my idea, everyone please check out my journal,http://slashdot.org/journal.pl?op=display [slashdot.org] I'll also post my idea now.

      Please review it and find its flaws.
      The solution for musicians and music fans is for us to become the distributors of music legally.

      How?

      We replace the RIAA and distribute music via P2P systems.

      The solution is a P2P system which intergrates into the web, there also needs to be a payment mechanism, (maybe paypal?)

      Users buy credits in this system, credits represent dollars and cents. So how do you get into the system? You buy in by buying music from fans who are already in the system.

      Say you are an indie musician, you make a bunch of music and you create a website, you then intergrate this system onto your website, allowing people to download off a certain P2P network via your site, almost like magnet links. The person who downloads from your site pays .50 cent per mp3 download, however the mp3 isnt downloaded from the musicians site, the mp3 is downloaded from the distrinbutor which happens to be a person who previously paid their way into the system by buying an mp3.

      So the fans take the place of the RIAA as distributor and take 25 cent of the 50 cent, so the musician gets 25 cent and the fan gets 25cent or 25 credits. When the fan gets 50 credits they can then go buy another song, so its a system which allows you the filesharer to get unlimited access to music (Free Music) because you become distributor, you legally pay the musician for the music so the musician is happy.You may even make a bit of money. Everyone Wins.

      Consumer/Downloader --> $ = $ --> Distributor&Creator , Consumers = Distributors & Downloaders. A closed system where we are the distributors, the creators, the owners of the intellectual property, and we get paid while having access to unlimited free music.

      You get free music as long as you share. Musicians get paid. New people have to pay their way into the system but once they do, they get free music or money, whichever they choose.

      If we can put the RIAA out of business, alot of the famous musicians which everyone likes would agree to such a setup.
      What do you think?

      I think its better than snapster because there is no central company involved.
      • This already exists. It's called Amway.
        • Whats wrong with this? Its proven to work if Amway is doing it.

          http://slashdot.org/~HanzoSan/journal [slashdot.org]

          • Didn't say anything was wrong with it. Matter of fact, I think this basic idea makes sense. It's multilevel marketing with the musicians at the top of the pyramid.

            Getting it implemented, though, is something else altogether.


            • Lets implement it, make a website, create the software, intergrate paypal into the system, etc.

              Or we can just create a site and put the Idea on it, and do what Cringly or whatever is doing and see if anyone picks up on it.

              I consider the current process I'm in as the peer review process, but if people say it can work then I go into the next phase of figuring out how to implement it. I think it can be done, mojonation attempted to create a payment system they just did it in the wrong way.
          • In Amway, the distributors add value to Amway by pestering their friends, neighbors, etc., to buy Amway stuff. In the proposed system, the distributors are not adding much value. Why shouldn't musicians just sell MP3s directly and keep the 50 cents?

            What could make sense is to have musicians set up affiliate programs (like Amazon [amazon.com]) that pay the fan a commission if a link on a fan's site leads to a sale.

  • I think this would be an awesome system (Score:3, Interesting)

    by dtolton ( 162216 ) * on Friday August 01, 2003 @12:26PM (#6589613) Homepage
    I really like the second version he's come up with. I think the first version was just way too risky legally. This version sounds really solid though IMO.

    I would love to see this cross-apply to different industries as well. Essentially it's just a digital library. I can't imagine why it wouldn't be legal to operate snapster 2.0.

    I for one would join for certain.

    • Re:Are there any digital libraries? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by ponxx ( 193567 ) on Friday August 01, 2003 @01:07PM (#6590042)
      I think there should be digital libraries. The traditional kind where you have to bring items back. You could for example have to right to have 10 CDs worth of music at any time, or maybe two or three computer games, or a couple of books. We know it's possible by mail (NetFlix) it should be even simpler electronically.

      All that is needed is a DRM solution that lets you check-out and check-in items. The provider then needs sufficient licenses to cope with parallel use. For anything that's not particularly new, i'm sure there are never more than a couple of hundred people world-wide listening to the same track at the same time...

      If you have 100 Mn subscribers for say 10 dollars/month you have a lot of money to buy licenses (+profit!)

      Ponxx

      • My old library system offers e-books (Score:4, Insightful)

        by MemeRot ( 80975 ) on Friday August 01, 2003 @02:05PM (#6590630) Homepage Journal
        You read access controlled ebooks, you lose access to the file after a certain amount of time. The library has licenses to let a certain number of readers access a title. When your time expires and the file is gone, that title goes back into the pool. Anyone else have something like this? The company that provides the service is called netLibrary [netlibrary.com].

        The site:

        http://www.mont.lib.md.us/researchinfo/ebooks.asp [lib.md.us].

        Excerpt:

        What eBook titles are available from MCPL?
        The Montgomery County Public Libraries eBook Collection includes Cliff's Notes to literary works and many Computer related titles. The Computer eBooks cover topics such as database management, HTML, the Internet, MS Office, networking, operating systems (Linux, Macintosh, Unix, Windows), and programming languages (ASP, Java, Javascript, Perl, and SQL) and more.

        Computer Title List

        The Publicly Accessible netLibrary eBook collection includes over 3,500 titles that are in the public domain. These are works of fiction, speeches, and government documents. When searching netLibrary, click the checkbox to include Publicly Accessible eBooks in your search.


    • The RIAA still gets paid, and still exists. This is bad for musicians, bad for the industry and bad for us. I want the RIAA to die.

      Second, a central company is involved, while this does make sense, what happens when that central company becomes too powerful?

      My solution is to decentralize everything including the business model. Check out my journal for information on my idea, please comment on it, if you think its a good idea let me know, if you think it sucks let me know.

      My idea is to have consumers co

  • Mutual ownship like in funds (Score:5, Interesting)

    by scharkalvin ( 72228 ) on Friday August 01, 2003 @12:29PM (#6589646) Homepage
    He almost has it there. Maybe more like the system that Lloyd's of London has where the members of Lloyds are responsible for the loses of the company is more like it.

  • Maybe we should have Netflix for CDs instead (Score:5, Interesting)

    by daveo0331 ( 469843 ) on Friday August 01, 2003 @12:29PM (#6589648) Homepage Journal
    Snapster sounds like a good idea, but the RIAA lawyers will fight it tooth and nail, which would be a problem regardless of whose side the law is actually on... a netflix for CDs would be much the same, except there would be higher distribution costs (offset by lower legal bills). Of course, they would have to make it clear that you shouldn't rent a CD and then rip it to MP3 before sending it back (wink wink).
    • "NetCDs" would actually be more open to liability than Snapster 2.0. the NetCDs type system would be open to the charge that it facilitates copying, since many (most) users would in fact rip the CDs to their HDDs. the Snapster 2.0 model, however, avoids this by using a streaming approach, ala Songster which is clearly legal. As long as every copy being streamed is only being streamed to one client at a time, and the technology can actually enforce this, Snapster would merely be doing what Songster is, but buying the rights to music by buying actual CDs rather than direct rights from the RIAA.

      Of course the eventual downfall of this system is that either CSS-like encryption is used or CDs become software programs that play music, and the EULA indicates that Snapster 2.0 is an unpermitted use.

    • Re:Maybe we should have Netflix for CDs instead (Score:5, Interesting)

      by cavemanf16 ( 303184 ) on Friday August 01, 2003 @01:00PM (#6589966) Homepage Journal
      Netflix, along with CleanFlix and the like are stupid distribution methods though. We've got digital media, we're GETTING to full broadband (very slowly, but surely) so why not use it? Why waste the gas, time, and annoyances of going to Blockbuster to physically rent a copy of the latest DVD, when I *could* just download a paid for copy of it? Don't even make it copy-protected. The RIAA and MPAA have their lapdogs scouring the net for illegally copied DVD's anyways, why not just nail every person that does that kind of file-trading illegally, but at the same time provide fully copied DVD's via a digital medium? Cut out the middleman (Blockbuster, Hollywood Video, etc)!!

      Why the RIAA and MPAA would waste $1.50 on shipping each of those DVD's, CD's, etc. to BestBuy when they could simply be shooting them to me via the internet for $1.00 less (netting them an extra $0.50 per unit) is beyond my comprehension!

      Sure, the "brick-and-mortar" stores will always be needed for when we need to go "browsing" for something to buy, but the Internet was supposed to revolutionize the way we do business and all, not simply add to the old ways. Maybe lawmakers will get thrown out of office enough times for supporting such mega-organizations like the RIAA and MPAA that things will change, but I doubt it.

      • Re:Maybe we should have Netflix for CDs instead (Score:5, Interesting)

        by tapin ( 157076 ) on Friday August 01, 2003 @01:27PM (#6590264)
        Netflix, along with CleanFlix and the like are stupid distribution methods though.
        That's an interesting observation, given that Netflix has shown a profit and most of the broadband movie delivery services haven't.

        Judging from the rest of your post, you're conflating the MPAA and its member organizations. They don't actually do any distribution themselves. And as for the reason why they (assuming the member organizations) don't just "shoot[] them to you via the internet for $1.00 less", you're ignoring the part where the "middleman" takes care of all the nasty details of actually dealing with customers, and removes that level of headache from the studios. There's a hell of a lot of infrastructure that would have to be built before you're going to see DVD data delivered via broadband.

        And I would imagine nobody's even seriously considering it right now because it would take Mom & Pop more than a day to download over their 56k modem that they just broke down and bought last year so they could get The Internet on their Win98 box in the den. Then, once they've downloaded it, they would realize they either need to watch it on their 15" monitor, or go buy a DVD burner and get Sonny to hook that up as well so they can burn it -- and then go buy a DVD player, when they've already got a perfectly fine VCR.

    • Look, it's really simple.

      Renting CDs in the US is agains the law [cornell.edu]. Period. Done. Next idea please, let's not kill billions of bits needlesslesly discussing yet another of Mr. Cringley's ideas which is obviously illegal.

  • Watch the CleanFlicks case (Score:5, Insightful)

    by John Harrison ( 223649 ) <johnharrison@@@gmail...com> on Friday August 01, 2003 @12:31PM (#6589670) Homepage Journal
    Oddly enough Cleanflicks, the company that many /.ers love to hate, is paving the way for the mutal ownership argument. They loan out edited videos to members who own the videos collectively. Since they own them, they are free to edit the as they wish, or so the argument goes.

    Interestingly, if you rent a DVD from them you get an edited DVD and a copy of the original DVD in a tamper-evident container which you are not to open. That way they ensure that they own one original copy for each edited copy and that you can't watch both at the same time. More importantly, you can't watch the edited one while your neighbor watches the origianl that you lent him. This is very similar to the ideas that Cringely puts forth in the Snapster 2.0 idea, except for the editing part. The fair use and mutal ownership aspects though are identical.

    • Re:Watch the CleanFlicks case (Score:4, Interesting)

      by MacMoov ( 138684 ) on Friday August 01, 2003 @01:47PM (#6590461)
      I also wonder how the RIAA would feel about edited versions of music as well.

      I have a collection of >5,000 CD's (I'm an ex-DJ and confirmed music junky.) Many of my CD's are the Parental Advisory (PA) versions of the CD. There are many times that I need the clean version (radio edits) of popular songs (i.e. at work or driving in the car with my 7 yr old daughter.)

      I have used various p2p applications to download the clean versions of various popular songs I already own and have never felt guilty that I was stealing music from the artist or label.

      I know they prefer that own both the Clean and PA version of a specific song, but I'm not going to pay double the price just so I can keep it clean when I need to.

  • Some Practical Problems (Score:3, Interesting)

    by ifreakshow ( 613584 ) on Friday August 01, 2003 @12:34PM (#6589693)
    His plan of locking physical access to the CD's has some practical problems. Let's say that you have 1,000,000 users. Let's suppose that each user has 2 cd/dvd rom drives they can put cd's in for access. That leaves us with 2,000,000 CDs peak. It seems like alot of CD's but how do you ensure that there aren't 2,000,000 Britney Spears CD's on the network instead of songs you'd actually want to hear.

    • Q:how do you ensure that there aren't 2,000,000 Britney Spears CD's

      A: Scare them off with a high front-end load and fluctating beta ratios. That'll teach em.

    • Re:Some Practical Problems (Score:5, Insightful)

      by southpolesammy ( 150094 ) on Friday August 01, 2003 @12:53PM (#6589897) Journal
      1. This is a beggar's market. You can only ask for what's out there, not what isn't.

      2. The issue with 2M copies of the same CD could possibly be worked out with some sort of CDDB lookup of the CD's in the Snapster database, but there's ways of burning CD's that make it so that CDDB can't tell a burnt CD from the real one. Unfortunately, this points us back at a topic Slashdotters cringe about -- DRM.

    • Re:Some Practical Problems (Score:4, Interesting)

      by pbox ( 146337 ) on Friday August 01, 2003 @12:58PM (#6589940) Homepage Journal
      I think you might have misunderstood Cringley. He still proposes that Snapster 2.0 purcheses physical CDs, before making them available.

      It is not the members who make the CDs available, rather the mutual fund itself.

      But that brings up another point, why would not the members mail in their CDs, for which they get download credits. this potentially will result in a giant collection of crapfest (aka Miz Spears), but it will address the general bad taste of public :-)
      • The best application for this would not be to try to compete with the mainstream media, that serves the taste of the mainstream public, but to find an underserved niche of people who are willing to pay for music that does not come through the main distribution channels.

        Do you really think the average person would be able to appreciate something this complicated, and how they could benefit from it? If all the want is the music being sold to them already, just considering switching to a different system of
    • No, you've missed the point. The users report what CD's they own to the snapster 2 database. They don't need to physically lock their CD's at all.

      In effect, the snapster central server counts up all the CD's input by users, plus the ones snapster owns directly. Then the server allows copies of the tracks that it has available by 'borrowing' the track from a physical CD held by a user.

      But the accounting is done purely virtually. Presumably, the users inputting CD's would have to sign a waiver saying that

    • You could take care of this with a properly designed revenue calculator. Each person would have a database of all the CD's they have available. It would look up to the central database and see which one/two (depending on # of drives) are in the most demand. Since the CD owner will receive 1 cent for allowing access to this CD, they would benefit the most by putting in the CD that's in the highest demand. The system would balance itself.

  • My 4 yr old (Score:5, Interesting)

    by SirLanse ( 625210 ) <swwg69@yFORTRANahoo.com minus language> on Friday August 01, 2003 @12:37PM (#6589727)
    If my 4 yr old wants to play the same song 50 times everyday for 2 weeks (week days only). Is that 500 plays at .05 per play = $25? That is the model the record companies want to have. Embed wireless DRM in everything, you have access to every song ever written for .05 each. Every time you play it.

    • Re:My 4 yr old (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Knife_Edge ( 582068 )
      What if you could play 50 different songs once a day for a monthly subscription of $15? That is $200 per year to access a potentially enormous archive of music, giving you the ability to hear more music than you could ever hope to buy at that price. I think it is worth it, but you should only be able to download as many songs as you can play. Screw the hoarders who want to copy the entire music archive to their giant raid array. Besides, in this case, there would be no reason to hoard, as you own the mu

    • Re:My 4 yr old (Score:3, Insightful)

      by pbox ( 146337 )
      50 songs at 5 min each, that is 250 minutes. That is 8+ hours a day. In other words for less than $100 a month you can listen to music for all your waken hours. And if you charge $0.02 per song, than it becomes $40 per month for continuous music...
    • I think the record companies are hesitant to compete with Apple's $1 per song rates. They want to make bank, whatever the market will bear.

  • the problem with snapster 2 (Score:4, Informative)

    by jbellis ( 142590 ) <(jonathan) (at) (carnageblender.com)> on Friday August 01, 2003 @12:38PM (#6589732) Homepage
    is the same problem mp3.com had when the riaa successfully sued them for their virtual music locker. the idea, was that mp3.com's software would scan a CD to verify you owned it, and afterwards you could listen to the songs on it anywhere, without actually having to rip or upload the mp3s yourself because mp3.com had a master copy. IIRC the courts decided this wasn't airtight enough even with random "please insert the CD again so we can verify you weren't just borrowing it from the library" checks.

    if anyone tries snapster 2 they'll lose in court for the same reason...

  • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • This does not let you copy a disc (Score:5, Interesting)

    by mendepie ( 228850 ) <mende AT mendepie DOT com> on Friday August 01, 2003 @12:40PM (#6589747) Homepage
    While this may allow others to download and listen to a song, then listen to it then notify snapster that they are done with it so that copy of it can can be "freed up", it does not allow the downloader to make a copy of a song.

    If this was not a streaming only service then
    RIAA would argue that people are copying the songs, and thus violating the copyright, which is most likely what will be happening.

    Another problem with is if I have a copy of a disc, and I register it with snapster so others can "borrow" it. If I dont get a notification that it is currently lent out I (or someone else) will be in violation if I listen to it. I can not belive that I will tell snapster every disc I bring into the car or play.

    It's an intresting idea, but I dont think it will ever fly.
    • You would not have to download the music, all of it is available to you 24/7. However space-shifting (or recording the stream) would clearly violate the term of usage.
    • You are not allowed to listen to it if it is lent out. That would be a requirement. If you listen to it while it is lent out, "shame on you." If you must listen to the CD, legally, then you would (like in the example of selling stock that his been borrowed against), use the system to acquire a right to listen to it.
    • This system is not supposed to be a distributed sharing system. All the discs in the system are bought by the collective and centrally stored. Thus you cannot put discs you own into the system yourself, while retaining your copy. This would create obvious problems if you listened to the disc, or a fair use copy you had made of the disc.

      True enough that adapting this system into a car or regular cd player would be implausible with current technology. It would only work on the computer. Yet if it worked

  • Already exists... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by rubinson ( 207525 )
    ...it's called a library.

    • Re:Already exists... (Score:3, Interesting)

      by L. VeGas ( 580015 )
      I almost completely ignored this comment because there's always someone bringing up libraries when this type of discussion comes up.

      But gee, you're exactly right. Behind a layer of mutual fund bullshit, he's described exactly what a library does. Why not just form a library instead of all this legal rigamarole?
      • If there are only 100,000 CDs avaliable in this library (assuming only one copy of each), and millions of susbscribers, wouldn't the library run out of materials rather quickly?

        Same concept if only one user is allowed to stream/download/listen to the music at a time.

        Does that mean if the music is downloaded to the local machine, must it be played through a proprietary program that would notify the database which songs are being played to maintain the fair use argument?
        • Libraries run out of copies of popular works right now, whether they are books, music, or whatever. The not-so-popular / new stuff is usually available though. Yeah, sounds to me like that's exactly what would have to happen. A tight tracking system to allow only one purchased copy to be played at any given time.

          Hey wait a minute! I just described DRM!

    • Re:Already exists... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by ponxx ( 193567 ) on Friday August 01, 2003 @12:56PM (#6589925)
      indeed, but it's an electronic implementation of a traditional library (e.g. if someone takes the item out, no-one else can have it until it's back).

      I think this is a great idea!

      Ponxx
  • "Comrade Stalin, the Slashdotters tell us that Pope Cringely has an idea called Snapster! We ought not to go up against him, because he thinks it's legal."

    "The Pope! And how many divisions does he have?"
    - Josef Stalin

  • change in "fair use" laws (Score:3, Interesting)

    by 192939495969798999 ( 58312 ) <info AT devinmoore DOT com> on Friday August 01, 2003 @12:42PM (#6589781) Homepage Journal
    I wouldn't be surprised to see someone make this system, and then to see the RIAA use all of its immense financial resources to pressure Congress into changing the "fair use" laws so that it specifically says you personally have to own the CD to hear a song... so much for radio if that happens!
  • It's a fun sounding idea (Snapster), but to me, it complicates itself too much and draws upon too many factors. This over complication and wide variety of factors (factors that must all be met in order for the entire "system" to work) leaves too many targets for the RIAA to attack with legistlation change.

    In other words, the RIAA could lobby for a law change that effects one little aspect (factor) of Snapster, which could cause the whole mess to come into question, which leads to failure.

    Fail, Snapster

  • I still say libraries are a special case. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by ahfoo ( 223186 ) on Friday August 01, 2003 @12:44PM (#6589798) Journal
    If you look at the fair use subsections of US copyright law, you see that there is very clearly a difference between individual fair use and fair use by a library or archive.
    Instead of arguing that P2P should be allowed as inidividual fair use and that P2P users are patrons of an archive, I think the better analogy is that each P2P node IS an archive and should be allowed to lend to other archives.
    According to the law, one copy can of a copyrighted work can still be made specifically for lending to other archives.
    The stipulations are that the archives must be without commercial advantage, open to the public and retain any copyright notices.
    Now, the one copy part might not fit Kazaa, but a differen type of P2P app could meet this requirement. It might not be as efficient, but it would still be P2P.

  • Royalties? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by miket01 ( 50902 )

    Snapster does little to hurt the musicians if we look back at their earlier work. Looking toward future music, the thing to do is not produce a CD at all, but instead do a direct distribution deal with Snapster. This would be a deal that isn't based on the subjective opinion of some record exec, but rather, allows all music in and pays royalties based on downloads or streams played.

    So where does that money come from? Once you drive CD manufacturers out of business, this royalty scheme will be the domina

  • Snapster 3.0 (Score:2, Interesting)

    by CleverFox ( 85783 )
    My idea is start up an online music store where people buy physical CD's. Once they buy the CD, they can also download the MP3 files associated with it, which is legally within their rights as new owners of the CD. The physical CD won't ship for 72 hours, so they have 72 hours to cancel their order. Then charge a 10% restocking fee if they cancel within the 72 hours, and request they delete any downloaded mp3's. Of course no one will delete the mp3's, so effectively they will have bought mp3's to the CD

    • Re:Snapster 3.0 (Score:3, Insightful)

      by RobertNotBob ( 597987 )
      as long as people are canceling within the 72 hour period.

      Just charge 110% of retail price. Then anybody who doesn't cancel gets a disk shipped to them, and the system still makes the 10%.

    • Of course this is clearly theft. If RIAA decides to subpoena the customer list, and raid everyone's house who cancelled CD shipments, will likely to result in better than 50% of such customer base found guilty in a criminal court...

  • Music library (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Pendersempai ( 625351 ) on Friday August 01, 2003 @12:50PM (#6589870)
    Despite all his conspiratorial talk and financial maneuverings, what Cringely is basically talking about is an online music library, like the one you go to to borrow books. You listen to music by electronically checking it out, and no one else can listen to it while it is checked out. The question is, do the Fair Use provisions and First Sale doctrines that protect physical book libraries also protect online music libraries?

    Well, it's up to the judge. Both sides have a strong argument:

    In defense of Snapster, ordinary libraries are definitely legal, and the doctrines that protect one could be argued to protect the other.

    On the other hand, the mp3.com precedent is not sympathetic to the effort, and the ease of making a copy of a streaming download might suggest to the judge that Snapster is yet another means for facilitating copyright infringement. There's clear precedent for banning programs that do that (napster, morpheus), so once infringement is seen as the primary purpose, it's all over.

    On the other hand, physical libraries permit patrons to borrow CDs, and these can easily be ripped. Such does not make infringement the primary purpose of borrowing CDs, as evidenced by the fact that libraries are still legal.

    So the million dollar question is whether Snapster is seen as a scheme to facilitate infringement or a legitimate library. It's up to the judge, really.

    The upshot is that Cringely ought to drop his conspiratorial muttering and winking, and he REALLY needs to pick a different name for it. Why not something like "Music Library"?

    • Re:Music library (Score:2, Interesting)

      by cc2003 ( 694407 )
      More to point:
      What's to stop someone from creating an internet based CD library.

      Operations would work similar to NetFlicks, except rather than having a centeralized depot where CDs and DVDs are mailed to and fro; the mailings are done individual to individual.

      So Music Library basically keeps: Info about album ownership, where the album is physically located, and how many albums people have out, and escrowed $$$ (more on this later).

      So assume I own a copy of "XYZ Album."

      1) I notify the "Music Library" th

  • So like a huge communally owned multi-disk changer (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Knife_Edge ( 582068 ) on Friday August 01, 2003 @12:54PM (#6589898)
    Huh, I didn't read the first snapster article, because I doubted it would have plausible ideas. This sounds interesting, basically in the electronic database, there would be one physical copy of the song that could only be used by one person at a time. This seems to make it legal - fair use is preserved, and communal ownership is possible.

    I dunno about it being cheaper than the other ways of buying the music in many cases. Particularly if the music is popular: In that case, many people would want to access the music at once, requiring many physical copies to be purchased. You would always be walking a fine line between providing a useful service that is cheaper than outright ownership, and annoying people with a busy signal. Plus, as you bought more copies, the cost would go up.

    Where this could really shine is building archives of music where overall volume of the archive makes it more valuable than being able to get to a specific song. There has been a lot of music made in the past, an enormous quantity really. Classical music fans would doubtless appreciate the ability to access recordings of as wide a variety of music as possible. Getting the latest hit single would not be a priority, and there are frequently multiple recordings of popular works anyway. Most other works would not have a much competition for access at any given time.

    Building an archive that people would want to access would have to mean an archive that would rival any individual's collection of recordings, while costing significantly less. But if this holds water legally, it might be possible. It would take a lot of cdrom drives though, unless the media was transferred to disk, and the physical copies were merely tallied and stored.

    • Re:So like a huge communally owned multi-disk chan (Score:4, Funny)

      by Kiaser Zohsay ( 20134 ) on Friday August 01, 2003 @02:29PM (#6590892)
      You would always be walking a fine line between providing a useful service that is cheaper than outright ownership, and annoying people with a busy signal. Plus, as you bought more copies, the cost would go up.

      This is where Cringley's dividend kicks in. One penny per download goes back to the physical owner of a CD. When a CD gets popular, somebody will

      1) notice
      2) go buy one (or several)
      3) put it in the archive
      4) Profit!

      Wait a minute, there's not ??? here! I must have missed something!
  • There is a good hole in this system. I can tell it that I physically own 50 copies of all the top 100 CDs out there. I will be paid $0.01 for each play from my (nonexistant) copies. I, "the supercriminal that I am", will earn money for giving away the virtual rights to something that I do not own. I'm sure it isn't a huge money incentive, but it does give incentive for people to lie. For whatever this is worth.

    Onto a cross with the netflix model, this could be interesting. Think about Netflix, but instead

  • just watch out for the sharks ... I mean lawyers. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by McFly777 ( 23881 ) on Friday August 01, 2003 @12:57PM (#6589928) Homepage
    The method presented in the second article (only allowing one check out at a time) is what I thought Cringely meant when I read the first article.

    I don't see why it shouldn't work, after all Apple is paving the way for electronic music distribution, as a store. Now we just have to implement the electronic library.

    It could be as simple as time stamping an expiration time in the file. Of course you would need a plug-in for various players (winamp, etc) to "enforce" the time stamp. If you get two requests simultaneously one has to wait the three minutes until the first stamp has expired and then fire off the file to the next listener. If you get more than some set number of people in the queue, creating too long of a wait, the server could be set to place an order for another hard copy of the disk.

    This would create the problem of winding up with 50 copies of the latest #1 chart hit, but in a few weeks, when the online demand has ebbed, you could resell the "used" disks to people who want to buy them at a lower price. (A good deal for the buyer as the "used" disk would probably still be in the wrapper!)

    The biggest problem would probably be the necessity to keep detailed logs of what was distributed and when, so that when (not if!) you are dragged into court by the RIAA you could prove that you had purchased a physical disk for every concurrent user.

  • Cannot be a mutual fund (Score:4, Informative)

    by DeepRedux ( 601768 ) on Friday August 01, 2003 @01:01PM (#6589976)
    Snapster 2.0 seems to be an attempt to mix the my.mp3.com model with the idea of mutual funds. As Cringely acknowledges, the my.mp3.com model is not legal. His use of the mutual fund idea will also not work.

    Mutual funds are regulated by the Investment Company Act of 1940 [uc.edu]. To simplify a bit, a mutual fund can only invest in securities; it cannot actually run an operating company.

    First there is the problem that Snapster is not planning on buying any securities. By law, this must be a mutual funds main business. A CD is not a security.

    Second, Snapster is really going to be an operating business, which a mutual fund cannot run. A rental company, like Blockbuster, cannot organize itself as a mutual fund. Even without the distribution of physical tapes, a satellite company, like DirectTV, cannot organize itself as a mutual fund. An ISP cannot organize itself as a mutual fund.

    Snapster 2.0 is going to need servers, databases, system administrators, etc. This will make it an operating company, not a mutual fund.

    A mutual fund run business functions to the extend needed to track shareholders and make investment decisions. Snapster's lending of CDs goes way beyond this.

  • First, I think Snapster 2.0 might appeal as a middle-road of the services out there. The most profitable target audience would be users who listen to lots of music but not for a long time (e.g., to try out new bands or following fads).

    But this is really not much more than a combination of the two types of services already out there (but a co-op model instead of top-down). In one corner are monthly-subscription services that offer a limited number of downloads. In the other, iTMS which charges per downloa
  • Okay, so in v2 there's supposed to be one physical copy for every digital one. I wonder how this would work in practice, in the sense that the most popular songs would invetably run into problems with being not available, and the less popular songs having too many cds required to purchase for too few plays. So the company would have to spend a huge amount of money keeping the most popular songs in stock, and waste money keeping less popular songs around just to satisfy the eclectic folks ... which sounds
  • Article : "the only businesses that mutual funds are not allowed to hold shares in are mutual funds."

    Somebody better tell that to Vanguard quick! [morningstar.com]

  • there is a better way (Score:2, Interesting)

    by jorr ( 621095 )
    A download system that benefits the artists more via micropayments, and I mean less than the $1 or so AppleTunes charges, can end this nonsense about getting around RIAA and so on. Anyone not willing to pay no more and probably less than $0.50 for a single is a jerk who probably deserves to have their hard drive invaded.

    Of course this would not apply to recordings to artists currently under contract, but so be it. (Those contracted artists who complain about losing money are idiots. They signed that opport
  • But just occasionally I wonder who the fuck half these people are that Slashdot stalks with such regularity. Cringely who? Cringely Whiplash? Or am I thinking of something else?

  • Three notes (Score:4, Insightful)

    by acroyear ( 5882 ) <jws-slashdot@javaclientcookbook.net> on Friday August 01, 2003 @01:10PM (#6590090) Homepage Journal
    1) The "borrowing" model reminds me of the Frozen Concentrated Orange Juice bit in the climax of Trading Spaces (Murphy/Ackroyd).

    2) The record labels do have one function that makes them a "necessary evil" : tour support. Bands can't really break into a national scene without playing outside of their regions, and that in America gets *expensive*.

    Even a modestly popular and established band like Marillion, who when they tour small clubs selling out 600-1200 seaters throughout the states, will *lose* $30,000. Generally, that $30K is covered by the record label (part of a secondary "advance"), who account for it in the hopes that it will be made up for in increased record sales due to the promotion.

    3) There's one other Force against Nature in all of this, one whose legal budget alone is worth more than Snapster could ever hope to raise : ASCAP. They won't go for this. ASCAP wants to and WILL take a cut from every copy, not just the original purchase.

    In the example of a clothing store in a shopping mall playing the local top 40 station, ASCAP collects first from the station's purchase of the CD, second from the radio station's own broadcast license, and third from the clothing store itself to have a "public performance" license.

    Out of an annual income of $8.6 billion, ASCAP claims to give 84% of all its income to the copyright holders. Sounds great, until you realize just how many lawyers can be bought with 16% of 8 billion dollars...With less than one year's "profits", ASCAP could buy controlling interest in Snapster 2.0 and shut it down in a heartbeat. Or just sue it into oblivion until a broadcast license rate is reached that makes operating it prohibitive.

  • Closer but still not practical (Score:3, Insightful)

    by crapulent ( 598941 ) on Friday August 01, 2003 @01:12PM (#6590109)
    The one glaring omission in this new Snapster 2.0 plan is that for it to work, thousands of people must not only buy shares of this collective, but they must donate their physical CDs to this virtual library. Indeed, the plan is predicated on the idea that thousands or millions of people will cede their ability to play at will any of the tracks of the CDs they have paid for and own... True, they can in return "borrow" tracks from other users (and they'd be receiving the paltry "bookkeeping fee" for their originals), and I suppose you could rig some sort of priority system where the physical media owner can force his/her way to the top of the queue of a song. However for it to be legal the owner will still have to wait for someone to check in a track (assuming no free slots) before they can listen to that track of a CD they own.

    I really think you will have great problems convincing thousands (or millions) of people to essentially give up the ability to play at will the tracks of the CDs they own. Yeah, if everyone suddenly became part of the collective there would probably be enough overlap so that no one would ever really have to wait very long. But for the more obscure tracks there could be a definite shortage of slots and the possibility could be very real that the owner of a CD would be unable to play his library for a significant time period until someone checks something in.

    And, this all completely ignores the problem of enforcement -- how do you:

    • prevent someone from checking out a track indefinitely
    • prevent someone from keeping a track after checking it back in
    • prevent someone from otherwise using a single check-out for multiple instances
    • prevent the physical owner from listening to their "donated" CDs that are currently "borrowed" (thus violating the "one copy per use" doctrine)

    If courts find that there is significant or rampant evidence of these protections failing, then the legitimacy of the plan really takes a hit. And let's face it, people are used to copying MP3 tracks at will, so why would they ever be inclined to voluntarily restrict themselves (and pay for the right to do so)?

    I'll admit, v2.0 is a lot closer to legal than 1.0 -- in fact it would actually BE legal if you could enforce the above restrictions... but human nature being what it is, I wouldn't count on it. Finally, to get mass appeal you would have to stay clear from proprietary formats or DRM, and that usually means that your chances of enforcement through software go way down.

    At the end of the day, this is just a very efficient library. However, it achieves this efficiency by eliminating the one thing that guarantees the legitimacy of the library: the fact that the items are physical units that pass from hand to hand, so that the one-copy-per-use notion is enforced. By doing away with the physical item, you open up a huge degree of efficiency and scale, yet you also make it very easy to cheat the system... and at then end of the day there's no way to ensure compliance, so this will fail along with all the Napsters and MP3.com's of the world.
    • And, this all completely ignores the problem of enforcement -- how do you:
      1. prevent someone from checking out a track indefinitely
      2. prevent someone from keeping a track after checking it back in
      3. prevent someone from otherwise using a single check-out for multiple instances
      4. prevent the physical owner from listening to their "donated" CDs that are currently "borrowed" (thus violating the "one copy per use" doctrine)
      1. Good question. One solution: Instead of a flat fee, use an auction system. .05 + bid. If you

  • It could work in Canada. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Pig Hogger ( 10379 ) <pig DOT hogger AT gmail DOT com> on Friday August 01, 2003 @01:14PM (#6590133) Journal
    Many libraries lend CDs to subscribers.

    Since they are "real tangible" things, like books, only 1 subscriber can borrow a CD at a time.

    So let's automatize the lending process: only one subscriber can lend a MP3 at a time; at that time, the MP3 becomes locked. It's only when he checks it back that it is unlocked and someone else can borrow it out.

    What he does with the MP3 when he has it his is own business (and in Canada, making a copy for your own private use is LEGAL - that's how I made my own MP3 collection).

    Of course, if some americans would borrow MP3s, and it's illegal for them to copy them in the US, well, that's a problem for the US, no? And given how the US/Canadian networks are intermingled, you can't be sure packets won't go through the US. As a matter of fact, to go to my library, eight blocks from my home, packets go through New-York City:

    traceroute www2.ville.montreal.qc.ca
    traceroute to montrealweb.ville.montreal.qc.ca (65.39.219.34), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets
    1 Montreal-HSE-pppxxxx.sympatico.ca (65.95.xx.xx) 7.259 ms 7.217 ms 7.52 ms
    2 dis4-montrealak-Vlan200.in.bellnexxia.net (64.230.237.130) 7.986 ms 7.829 ms 7.497 ms
    3 core1-montrealak-Gigabite2-1.in.bellnexxia.net (64.230.240.61) 7.525 ms 8.529 ms 7.509 ms
    4 core1-newyork83-pos1-2.in.bellnexxia.net (64.230.240.78) 15.416 ms 16.171 ms 15.896 ms
    5 HSE-Sherbrooke-ppp98979.qc.sympatico.ca (64.230.223.118) 16.103 ms 16.248 ms 16.18 ms
    6 208.50.13.129 (208.50.13.129) 17.011 ms 15.065 ms 15.398 ms
    7 pos2-0-2488M.cr1.NYC1.gblx.net (67.17.64.145) 15.663 ms 15.865 ms 15.641 ms
    8 pos0-0-2488M.cr1.JFK1.gblx.net (64.214.65.162) 15.161 ms 15.854 ms 15.653 ms
    9 so0-0-0-2488M.ar1.JFK1.gblx.net (64.214.65.198) 16.12 ms so3-0-0-2488M.ar1.JFK1.gblx.net (64.214.65.202) 15.865 ms 15.664 ms
    10 Peer-1.so-2-0-0.ar1.JFK1.gblx.net (67.17.161.118) 17.287 ms 17.566 ms 17.64 ms
    11 OC48POS3-0.mtl-core-a.peer1.net (216.187.123.233) 25.005 ms 24.602 ms 26.489 ms
    12 Gig5-0.mtl-gsr-a.peer1.net (216.187.90.6) 26.721 ms 25.644 ms 25.271 ms
    13 65.39.219.252 (65.39.219.252) 26.458 ms 26.752 ms 26.453 ms

    So, this clearly shows that the system is definitely b0rk3n, and that scheme could really force a redesign of the whole IP hoopla...

  • "For Snapster 2.0, then, the purchased copies act as masters that can be copied under fair use. But there can only be one copy in use at a time for every physical disk in the system. If 10,000 shareholders wanted to play the same song at the same time, we'd need to buy 10,000 CDs OR borrow 10,000 CDs. To do this (borrowing not buying), Snapster would have to be a big database that includes both music and ownership rights to that music. "

    So if n people are playing a song simultaneously, the collective needs

  • supply and demand (Score:5, Insightful)

    by pavon ( 30274 ) on Friday August 01, 2003 @01:27PM (#6590259)
    The basis of this system is that since we have a fair-use right to listen to our music at any time, and we are only actually listening to a single cd less than 1/100th of that time we need to we are wasting money. So instead we can share that cd with 100 people and take full advantage of it (actually we would need more than one cd depending on peak listening hours and popularity of certain songs)

    The problem with this system is that if it ever took off, and was actually maintained legal in court, it would mean that there would be a lot fewer CD's being sold, since we are squeezing more use out of them. Therefore, as demand decreased, prices would rise, since an artist would have charge more money for a CD to make as much money as he used to. The result - it becomes too expensive for a single person to buy a CD, and and the only economical way to listen to music would be to belong to some sort of 'Snapster Fund', which probably wouldn't be that less expensive than it used to cost to buy CD's, and possibly more due to the overhead costs in running it.

    So in effect it would not decrease the cost of music in the long run, and would simple make it manditory to go through this additional middleman. Note this plan does nothing to get rid of the RIAA - heck if they couldn't beat it they'd probably end of buying it. (/me shudders)
  • If I stream directly from the physical CD, and guarantee that only one client can receive the stream, then I'm effectively using the internet as a glorified audio cable. Surely this must be legal! As soon as it stops getting ACKs to the streaming packets, it stops sending packets, and somebody else can access the CD. Of course, it requires a massive jukebox somewhere with enough copies of CDs to keep concurrent requests happy. But really, it's just the online equivalent of a library. If the call in an "onli

  • I see a hole... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by terradyn ( 242947 )
    i just figured out a flaw to this system for any types of item cd/dvd/software... given that you are giving up ownership of your cd to another party, what's the stop a member of the RIAA/MPAA/individual/etc to just collect on their ownership rights to the item in question. They could pay whatever nominal fee is associated with this system and then just request everything and decide not to share it back out. Given that in order for this system to be legal, full ownership must be transferred to the current us

  • Already been done, kinda (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 01, 2003 @01:34PM (#6590340)
    This model sounds very much like that of something another company is doing.

    Console Classix [consoleclassix.com] is providing a similar service in the emulation industry. They have a physical repository of old Atari2600, Sega Genesis, NES and SNES cartridges. All of these carts have been digitally imaged into a server. By logging into their server you can "check out" a particular cartridge and play it using their client client software. The central server locks that cartridge so no one else can play it at that time. When you close the client software the central server releases the locked cart for someone else to play.

    So far they have caught the attention of Nintendo of America Inc. but NOA has not pursued any sort of Cease and Desist or any other legal manuvers.

  • Addition to Cringely's thoughts (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I like Cringely's idea, but I would propose that, as part of the start-up capital, the mutual fund should hire a few well-known groups to each put out a CD in order to start sales off with something the RIAA can't fight legally. This way, if the RIAA comes up with some sort of miraculous legal victory, Snapster could work towards luring away the artists, thereby crippling the RIAA. If they could make $1.50 on a $3 CD, odds are the RIAA would lose enough musicians that they would either go out of business,
  • ...but rather than just admit I am a dork and move on, I am going to PROVE I am a dork by proposing Snapster 2.0...

    It's hard not to like this guy, isn't it?
  • No one seems to address the question of what would happen if Snapster -- or original Napster -- had been successful. What is successful? For these purposes, survived court challenges and continued to operate.

    If the RIAA and music companies had not closed down Napster in the courts then they would have had to compete with it. Real competition finally. If that happened, I'd say we'd be getting better products at better prices today. I doubt the record companies would have just gone out and died. Inste

  • Subscription Libraries and other cats to skin... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by podperson ( 592944 ) on Friday August 01, 2003 @02:05PM (#6590637) Homepage
    Snapster 2.0 is a subscription library (which is perfectly legal and which has existed for hundreds of years). The technical details are all but irrelevant.

    The real question is:

    Should a right that no longer makes sense be perpetuated at great cost to society? Before recording equipment there was no recording industry. If you wanted music you played it yourself or hired a musician.

    Today, recording and duplicating stuff is trivial but we want to create complicated laws and technologies in order to force ourselves into a virtual past where recording and duplication were expensive. This seems stupid (as in both wrong and ultimately ineffectual) to me.

    It seems stupid to me that it's even legal to sell DVDs that can be legally purchased in Europe and then not be played in the USA (and vice versa), especially when the technology has intentionally been crippled (it's not like the PAL/NTSC incompatibility we have with video tape).

    In theory, when you photocopy a book you are infringing copyright. But "fair use" means that if you don't do it with bad intentions or on an industrial scale, you don't go to jail. In practice, the main reason that people don't photocopy expensive books instead of buying them is that the copies are ugly and inferior. Likewise, avid fans of star trek prefer DVDs to home made video recordings with ads and poor reception etc. When the copies are sufficiently perfect and cheap, the market will ignore copyright, as well it should!

    In theory, I probably "own" the air around my house. Exerting any ownership rights is essentially pointless, arguing that my trees are converting my neighbour's carbon dioxide into oxygen that her large family and pets are consuming is similarly pointless. But sometimes residents band together to stop large companies building factories, or creating pollution standards for cars.

    Economists -- should any read Slashdot -- will point out that I'm confusing a "commons" (the air) with a "public good" (Intellectual Property). But Economists would also note that IP should, theoretically be FREE and that patents and copyrights are a kludge to encourage people to produce IP and publish it in exchange for a temporary and limited monopoly.

    When companies are able to perpetuate their copyrights (e.g. the way Disney can remaster the audio in Snow White and extend copyright for 75 more years having NEVER provided the public with a master copy of the original version to duplicate once copyright on that version expired) the system has failed and needs to be fixed. Fortunately, digital copying gives us a de-facto fix for this big problem and we should resist any attempts to subvert it by making it more complex and expensive than it needs to be.

    I would argue that intellectual property is in the process of moving from being "like a manufactured good" to being "like the air". The law needs to move from managing trivial transactions (e.g. do I own more Nelly CDs than I play simultaneously) to large scale infractions (e.g. SPAM is large scale pollution and abuse of the internet and it's reasonable to regulate it).

    We can argue all we like about how to micromanage the collapse of intellectual property as we know it, or instead we can start planning for what the world is really going to be like down the track. We never figured out fair or intelligent systems for dealing with the threat to IP posed by VHS, compact audio cassettes, or photocopying. We got over it.

Slashdot Top Deals

Single tasking: Just Say No.

Close