Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
Music Media The Internet

Recording Industry's Unexpected Benefit from P2P 335

Matthew Schultheis writes: "Yahoo / AP is reporting that the record industry is using the files traded on Kazza et al. to track where music is popular. It turns out that they even pay for this information. 'It's the most vast and scalable sample audience that the world has ever seen'" Now if they could only use this data to somehow put out better music...
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Recording Industry's Unexpected Benefit from P2P

Comments Filter:
  • by BlackCobra43 ( 596714 ) on Tuesday November 18, 2003 @12:47AM (#7499651)
    Razor-sharp irony kills 3, wounds 25.
  • Uh hu... (Score:2, Funny)

    by guamman ( 527778 )
    You already know what I'm going to say so I don't really need to post it. (The Irony)
  • Eh? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by DeadHateMachine ( 665866 ) on Tuesday November 18, 2003 @12:47AM (#7499653) Homepage
    So they are sueing us for downloading but yet useing the stats of our downloads? Sounds hypocritical to me.. This really goes to show you that corperations and selfish organizations will stop at nothing to make a profit.
    • Re:Eh? (Score:4, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 18, 2003 @01:01AM (#7499754)
      Eh? That is what corporations are supposed to do.
    • Re:Eh? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by pvt_medic ( 715692 )
      and just remember all the money from the lawsuits go to help the hurting artist right... oh no wait it goes into their pockets. I love those ad campaings the MPAA and RIAA have about how it hurts the working man, because i know that they are all benefiting from the legal action being taken.
      • >I love those ad campaings the MPAA and RIAA
        >have about how it hurts the working man

        There is nothing funny about watching industry organizations beating the life out of a working man. We should increase our file trading to divert their attention so the working man can escape.
      • You're right on. I was in the music industry in Nashville for some time, and still have friends that are professional songwriters. None of them have seen a dime for the RIAA's "efforts." The funny thing about it is they're all gung-ho behind the RIAA. My assumption is that's because it's their publishing companies' corporate line.
    • Re:Eh? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by paulthomas ( 685756 )
      You make a good point about corporate hypocrisy and morality... On the other hand you totally discredit yourself with your conclusion:

      You make it sound like selfishness is not a virtue. What drives the world? Certainly not solidarity.

      I agree that the RIAA uses underhanded, evil tactics to this end; I do not condone their actions. In fact, I'm boycotting the RIAA and only buying from indie labels or direct from the artists. (I just bought the new Hot Hot Heat album... 8/10 stars for reminding me of the Cla
      • Re:Eh? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by spacecowboy420 ( 450426 ) <> on Tuesday November 18, 2003 @02:40AM (#7500251)
        You make it sound like selfishness is not a virtue. What drives the world? Certainly not solidarity.

        Selfishness is a character flaw, not a virtue. Unfortunately, it is also human nature. If not for selfishness and greed, we could have a true altruistic society; one where everyone worked for the good of the community instead of themselves. In other words, selfishness is why communism is only good on paper.
      • Re:Eh? (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Blue Stone ( 582566 )
        "What drives the world? Certainly not solidarity."

        I think you'll find that we're genetically hardwired to be co-operative social animals, even when it's not in our best interest to be.
        Scientific studies have shown [and I'm sure someone can find links] that people want to co-operate with others, despite it making better sense to be selfish.
        Selfishness may provide benefits, but these are generally short-term. To claim it's a virtue, is crass.

        You claim the poster to whom you respond doesn't understand what

        • Re:Eh? (Score:3, Interesting)

          by iconian ( 222724 )
          Social cooperation does exist and selfishness is detrimental in some cases. An example are vampire bats.

          Vampire bats have notorious energy demands. They can die if they do not feed on a daily basis. Now occasionally there are nights when a vampire bat fails to find food. So what normally happens is that the bat is able to bum food off of a non-related buddy. Obviously, that buddy is losing resources when it gives food away. But the lost in the buddy is trivial compare to the gain in the bat that didn't fin
    • Re:Eh? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by illuminata ( 668963 )
      God dammit, we have yet another bleeding heart anti-corporate post.

      Instead of crying about how every single company wants to exploit the consumers, why not just hold each one accountable for their own actions? People need to quit acting like anybody with money is dying to fuck them over. Hold each group accountable for their own actions instead of making broad generalizations.
    • I'm hardly an RIAA advocate (quite the opposite - check my posting history), but this doesn't seem hypocritical at all. It seems like a good use of resources by the RIAA.

      Why should someone be criticized for taking something good away from a condition that they're fighting? The medical profession has been fighting HIV for two decades - and yet we've learned a ton about viruses in the process. In America's fight against terrorism, we've learned a lot by examining how terrorists target our security processes

      • Re:Eh? (Score:3, Insightful)

        Your analogies don't really fit the situation. True, if someone said it was hypocritical for the RIAA to benefit from something they are trying to destroy, then your analogies do fit this exact wording.

        However, in the examples you use the "benefit" is knowledge on (a) how better to fight the phenomenon, or (b) how to fight off similar phenomenon. There is no net benefit to humans in this example, but rather information on how to reduce the likelihood of bad effects from these phenomena. For example, le

    • they jail us for crimes yet they still analyze crime data! hypocrisy!!! [/chickLittle:JerkKnee]
  • hmm... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Hi_2k ( 567317 ) on Tuesday November 18, 2003 @12:47AM (#7499657) Journal
    We could abuse this: Everyone, start sharing plenty of Polka, 80's pop, and Barney. Now lets talk about targeted marketing!
    • someone hack together a quick bot to auto download some of that stuff... heck, lets do weekly themes... or daily. what if there was a 500% increase of disco music on monday, but only monday(and every monday for 2 months?) tuesday could be gangsta rap. wed could be, i duno, techno.

      Heh, why not, if you download, and then delete at 12:01 the next day, who cares? and it would screw the numbers up bad!
    • ... Start?
  • Ironic... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by danielrm26 ( 567852 ) * on Tuesday November 18, 2003 @12:48AM (#7499661) Homepage
    So they treat it like it's a child porn network in their PR statements and then turn around and find a way to make money off it.

    That's big business for you.
  • You mean... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Fnkmaster ( 89084 ) * on Tuesday November 18, 2003 @12:48AM (#7499663)
    P2P is just like radio, only the people actually listen to music they _like_ instead of shit that the stations are payed to pimp out as top 40? Fucking amazing. These guys are geniuses.
    • Re:You mean... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by paulthomas ( 685756 ) on Tuesday November 18, 2003 @01:08AM (#7499793) Journal
      Oddly enough it serves as a mere extension of corporate radio's long arm. How do you discover new music on P2P? Geeks may know about things like iRate Radio, but your average P2P user is going to download the trash that the radio tells them to like. And next, listen to this new Madonna/Britney smash hit! -Paul
  • hmmm.... (Score:5, Informative)

    by Smitty825 ( 114634 ) on Tuesday November 18, 2003 @12:49AM (#7499670) Homepage Journal
    Where have we seen this [] before?
    • Yup, I was just going to say the same thing.

      Since this story is a dupe, it's time to go a bit OT... Has anyone else heard similar RIAA propaganda being used as a promo for free CD giveaway contests? One of the rock stations here in Orlando, FL (USA) has been doing a "Win it before you can burn it" contest. It starts out something like:

      "This is Billy. Little Billy is doing five to ten for downloading music from the Internet."

      And proceeds to pretty much play off prison rape humor (which usually doesn't
  • by SUB7IME ( 604466 ) on Tuesday November 18, 2003 @12:49AM (#7499672)
    I have absolutely no legal background (that statement goes way beyond IANAL), but I'm sort of thinking that benefitting from a crime must be illegal. If the RIAA considers filetrading (of their copyrighted files) to be illegal, and the legal system agrees, then nobody should be using that data to then profit.

    (Just as we do not, for ethical reasons, use information that the Nazis gleaned from their experimentation on the Jews in World War II. Clearly the magnitude is nowhere near the same, but the underlying ethical principle is similar.)
    • I have absolutely no legal background (that statement goes way beyond IANAL), but I'm sort of thinking that benefitting from a crime must be illegal.

      Usually, the perpetrator cannot benefit from his own crime. Thus, if an heir apparent kills his intestate parent, slayer statutes will often prevent the killer from receiving his parent's estate.
    • by DarkSarin ( 651985 ) on Tuesday November 18, 2003 @01:01AM (#7499750) Homepage Journal
      You are mistaken in one thing though--we DO use the information the nazis gleaned from their experimentation. Sorry to bust your bubble, but they made vast advances in the medical fields with their very unethical methods that would take us much longer today.

      DON'T get me wrong, though. I AM IN NO WAY ADVOCATING, CONDONING OR APPROVING OF, what the nazis did, their methods, or of utilizing such procedures. It is one of the most dispicable acts in the history of mankind. Nevertheless, it is a fact that society uses the information they obtained through these methods.

      This is not an uncommon situation. In psychology there are a LOT of classic expirements that would not be performed now due to ethical concerns. That in NO WAY limits the usefulness of that information or the fact that is has been used as the basis for a lot of theoretical framework. An example would be the researcher at John Hopkins Medical Center who conditioned a young child to be very phobic of anything that was white and fluffy. Such experiments are not ethical, but much of what we know about phobias and treating them is a result of his research.

      Flame me if you wish, but we DO use information gathered in an unethical manner frequently--as long as it is regarded as accurate, which the data gathered by the nazis is. They were, if nothing else good can be said, very methodical in their research.

      • DON'T get me wrong, though. I AM IN NO WAY ADVOCATING, CONDONING OR APPROVING OF, what the nazis did ... Once again, I DO NOT CONDONE WHAT THEY DID.



      • It's called (Score:3, Insightful)

        by KalvinB ( 205500 )
        making the best of a bad situation.

        Yes it's terrible some of these things happened but it would be even more tragic if we refused to gleam some good out of it. They would have been tortured and murdered purly for evil. Many people died in horrific ways but because of the information many more are saved. If I'm going to be tortured I'd certainly hope something good and useful was learned in the process.

        I'd roll in my grave if the cure to cancer was found by committing some horrific experiments on me and
      • by mantera ( 685223 ) on Tuesday November 18, 2003 @06:32AM (#7500820)

        i don't know why you feel you have to clarify time and again that you do not condone or approve or whatever... the nazis were a product of a situation and an era... the "final solution" if such a thing existed was a result of the age of reason that saw such a course of action as rational... the catholic church and pope weren't even vocal enough about it... now some people continue to deny much of the atrocities and say they were grossly exagerated... i don't know about that, maybe, maybe not... but i know one thing... losers tend to be vilified and winners write history books...

        Just consider for example the Tuskegee Syphilis experiments; google for it... For forty years between 1932 and 1972, the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS) conducted an experiment on 399 illiterate black men who were lied to and a disease such as syphilis was deliberately allowed to take its awful course on them without treatment. here []

        While you're at it you might wanna also google for the CIA mind control experiments during the cold war... they experimented on soldiers and mental patients, gave them high doses of drugs, hundreds of electric shock treatments per individual within a few days... and stuff like that...

        most importantly, had you or the person you responded to been living in nazi germany, you would've probably done the same. Just see the Milgram experiments []... google for them if you don't trust the source

        don't exonerate yourself; given the situation, we're all guilty
    • by Anonymous Coward
      Just as we do not, for ethical reasons, use information that the Nazis gleaned from their experimentation on the Jews in World War II.

      Really. I think you should read up on Operation Paperclip []. Science/Information is still science/information no matter ( or perhaps in spite ) of whoever uncovers it. At least the government is wise enough to understand this.

      • Thanks for the rebuff; I now know something new. I just had assumed that, based on our oft-means-based legal system, we would avoid that information due to the nature of its source.

        It is always good to learn.
    • The legal system does have rules that a person cannot benefit from his crime. That does NOT prevent others from benefitting, thought. Just look at Vincent Bugliosi, prosecutor of the mansom family. He made his reputation and a LOT of $ off of the murders. But he didn't commit them, so to our legal system, that's ok.
    • Well, if my sister kills my parents to get her share of the inheritance, it is obviously my duty to tell the Police about her crime right? And gently get her share of the money as well... So I would benefit from a crime, yes.
    • but I'm sort of thinking that benefitting from a crime must be illegal
      That's very interesting. Maybe somebody (but who?) could nail the Industry for benefitting from proceeds of crime. But realize this can't happen. The Industry owns government. They can do whatever the hell they want.
    • Think of this more like a book that rates a cars value by how often it is stolen.
    • "Just as we do not, for ethical reasons, use information that the Nazis gleaned from their experimentation on the Jews in World War II. Clearly the magnitude is nowhere near the same, but the underlying ethical principle is similar."

      Erm...they still used the research. In fact Werner Von Braun got a lovely corner office despite work in Peenamunde, while we in the UK got the fruits of the biochemical warfare research.

      You seem to be suggesting that government is ethical.

  • I mean...profiting from illegal actions, right?
  • by ShatteredDream ( 636520 ) on Tuesday November 18, 2003 @12:52AM (#7499691) Homepage
    work on creating a community site where bands can pay $5-$10 a business quarter to be listed with samples that can be streamed, that connects the bands to venues for say..... 5% of the proceeds and that lets users post comments about the band and rate their music? Then said label gets out of the old business of being a content producer and a service company for musicians providing them everything from merchandising to recording studios to instruments to music software? Basically become a service/product Walmart for musicians and fans as opposed to the current model of milking bands for records.
  • by femto ( 459605 ) on Tuesday November 18, 2003 @12:53AM (#7499695) Homepage
    > Now if they could only use this data to somehow put out better music...

    Naah. They'll use it to reduce the quality of the music down to the 'most efficient level', whereby the quality of the music is just above the level at which it stops selling.

    • I so wish I could mod you up.

      Brilliant! That's exactly what they cram in to these execs heads in econ classes.

    • Unfortunatly, that will leave many people out of music entirely. If music beomes a mono-culture, then by that standard, diversity dies. The religeous folks are not interested in Eminem even though he is on the top of the file trading list. Not everyone is interested in derogatory foul language rap. Fine, the Reality TV / shock TV crowd may buy it for a while, but as they mature, there will be interest in other music. Let's face it, just how much George Carlin type humor do you buy? Eminem is just this
  • Kazza? (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 18, 2003 @12:55AM (#7499711)
    Be careful how you spell it, Kazza [] is a recording industry frontend where you fill a form with your name and e-mail address. You probably mean Kazaa [].
    • Wow, I'd never even heard of this. Isn't this kind of thing called FRAUD? Is this site illegal?!?! This is the most disgusting thing I have ever seen, even more so than some of the lawsuits so far.

    • Looking at the RIAA's pseudo kaaza,


      Stay legal and avoid breaking the law! MP3s and file-sharing networks are legal and using them is also legal. Inside our member's area you will find a section dedicated on showing how to stay 100% legal while getting access to the largest file sharing networks.

      If I were an individual who knew nothing of the RIAA, I might see this as a legal way to download music and movies. Mainly because it says that it's legal. It's not like they're te

    • " Be careful how you spell it, Kazza is a recording industry frontend where you fill a form with your name and e-mail address. You probably mean Kazaa."

      I checked the site out and was able to make a download without entering my name or e-mail address. Besides which, asking for an address/e-mail is hardly a problem, as you could enter false data; how would it be of use to the RIAA?
      I see no evidence, and the AC offers none, to suggest his/her claim is true [yet gets +5 Informative.]

  • by Gyan ( 6853 ) on Tuesday November 18, 2003 @12:56AM (#7499718)

    Goto's should be avoided in programming. So far, it has gotten this story posted 4-5 times already within the last few months.
  • the better article (Score:5, Informative)

    by noah_fense ( 593142 ) <noahtheman AT gmail DOT com> on Tuesday November 18, 2003 @12:57AM (#7499720)

    has been around for a little while . . . .html []
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 18, 2003 @12:57AM (#7499722)
    Stop telling us how ironic this is. It's not. It's just fsckin' sad.
  • I want to believe these CEOs and lawyers were once human beings.

    Unfortunately, it all started going downhill for them when their temper tantrums brought Mommy and Daddy running to slacken their every discomfort. The rest, as they say, is history...
  • by thumbtack ( 445103 ) <> on Tuesday November 18, 2003 @01:07AM (#7499789)
    trying to prove that P2P had no substantial no infringing use. Case closed.
  • by nudicle ( 652327 ) on Tuesday November 18, 2003 @01:08AM (#7499795)
    Guys, I'm on the anti-riaa, etc boat with you guys but I don't think it's that hypocritical. The music industry currently finds itself in a world in which there's massive p2p going on. If it can keep the control it once had (eg win the legal war or develop some effective technical self-help), well, then it sees that as the best. So we have the lawsuits and the DRM attempts.

    But then there's also the first part of the above sentence -- the world as it is now features p2p and music sharing. Even if this isn't the world as they want it, they need to figure out how to exploit it as best they can. Hence, makethe most of (from their perspective) a bad situation, and mine p2p for some useful data.

    They're trying to maximize their profits. If there's money to be made scouring p2p data then they'll buy the research, but just because they are scavenging some benefit out of it doesn't make it hypocritical for them to want it to go away .. it just makes them pragmatic.

    • Completely true, but it sure hurts their case about how much p2p hurts them. They couldn't do this without it.
    • "The music industry currently finds itself in a world in which there's massive p2p going on."

      There's always been massive P2P going on, although your horizon was bounded by the limits of your social network and you were using the bandwidth of blank cassettes. *Now* they have the figures to bleat about to justify any damn thing they want to do.

      Similarly government uses peadophiles/Terrorists in the same way as it used drug dealers/communists (and in one example, ethnic groups) to justify draconian measur
  • by Entropy248 ( 588290 ) on Tuesday November 18, 2003 @01:12AM (#7499814) Journal
    "When someone plops down 99 cents to buy a single, that shows a higher level of interest than just getting it for free," Welt said.

    As any 1st year marketing major could tell you, this data will not be as useful as one might imagine. Knowing who wants a product (in this case, a CD) in no way relates to knowing who is willing to pay for a product. Some consumers want Ferraris; not all of them will buy one (for reasons of Price). Without a clear way of associating user names with demographic or psychographic data, this will not even help to more clearly define the target audience for an artist. All this data represents is the number of computer literate people who are actively sharing a song; this may or may not be related to whether they actually enjoy the song; this may or may not be related to whether they would/could pay for the song; this may or may not be related to the fake files that are being posted on KaZaa (that song's popular? Shove a couple thousand fakes online; discourage lots of people). Move along people, nothing to see here...
  • You hear it all the time - and, most of the time, actually no, it isn't. Hypocritical and/or cynical, more likely.

    prof. hojo
  • It would seem like the RIAA using data collected from file sharing systems to do something other than sue filesharer's would have some kind of legal implication.. giving tacit approval for filesharing, etc.
  • by psoriac ( 81188 ) on Tuesday November 18, 2003 @01:19AM (#7499856)
    I've downloaded dozens of songs today alone... to whom do I address my bill for services rendered?

  • by rice_burners_suck ( 243660 ) on Tuesday November 18, 2003 @01:25AM (#7499888)
    Well, as you can see, the file trading networks aren't all bad-news to the poor artists, like the RIAA would have you believe. But then, some people are aware of the real reason that the RIAA wants to kill filesharing, and it's not piracy.

    What? Not piracy? Then why in the world would they want to kill a system that is so beneficial to them?

    Because of a problem that they consider bigger than piracy: The growing number of independant artists, many of whom are becoming increasingly popular. Yes, that's right folks. The RIAA doesn't want to protect its poor artists from the piracy that is putting them in the poorhouse. On the contrary, the RIAA is the one putting its poor artists in the poorhouse. No, no, no, folks. The RIAA is doing this to take business away from the artists that the RIAA is incapable of putting in the poorhouse, because it is incapable of stealing their money, because they didn't sign their soul over to the RIAA.

    That, my friends, is why the RIAA wants to kill filesharing.

  • by MisterMook ( 634297 ) on Tuesday November 18, 2003 @01:33AM (#7499933) Homepage
    Now if they could only use this data to somehow put out better music...
    There's no incentive to put out better music though, when aggressively defending your cartel's monopoly gets you all the money that you need. And hey, let's face it: paying up a few million a year for lawyers and lobbyists to pass legislation and extort money from money poor students is chump change when you compare to the costs of changing their business model.

    If telephones had never been broken up, would we have ever had cellphones today except maybe in Europe? A powerful media outlet company has even more and broader powers than other sorts of monopolies, because of better access and because they're business is controlling what people want and think. I truly don't think that the music industry is evil, but they're as inertia-bound as any other large incestuously linked series of codependent corporations. If suing customers and softcore porn Britney clones make shareholders happy then thats what we get.

  • Hacking the Tracking (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Maestro4k ( 707634 ) on Tuesday November 18, 2003 @01:34AM (#7499939) Journal
    Perhaps my mind's a tad devious, but from what I read in the article about how BigChampaigne is operating, the "research" they provide to the record companies is very hackable. It looks like they're tracking requests on the Kazaa network, even if they only track requests to actually download a song (and is this even possible? I'm not up on the technical specifics of how Kazaa's network runs), then all someone needs to do is generate a lot of bogus download requests. No need to actually download anything, just as long as BigChampaigne's software logs the request. A fairly small group of people with access to lots of IP addresses could completely screw the statistics up in short order. Even a home user with DHCP could screw with the stats some, by sending out lots of requests for download on one IP, then requesting a new lease for a new IP. Lather, Rinse, Repeat.

    Now there's an idea, we could create a company that indy groups pay to have their songs spike higher in the download charts. Nothing illegal about it (well Kazaa's owners might not like it), since you wouldn't actually download the files. Ahhh, to toy with the minds of the RIAA, it'd be such fun. :)

  • Skewed sample? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Galvatron ( 115029 ) * on Tuesday November 18, 2003 @01:36AM (#7499948)
    Isn't this going to be skewed towards music that people like enough to listen to (or even are just curious about), but not necessarily enough to buy? For example, I might download some Top 20 crap, because I've heard it and sometimes it's amusing (or even catchy). But the stuff I buy has to have a bit more replay value than that.

    Also, with these lawsuits going on, isn't that also going to affect the sample pool (by selecting out those computer savvy enough to change their shared folders, and increasing the proportion of people outside the USA)?

  • I have absolutely no problem with the labels making money by other means off of products we're recieving- and don't forget it -for free. In fact, I'd wager that the more money they make through these secondary revenue sources, the less likely they're apt to turn around and bite the hand that feeds em. We're breaking down the Berlin wall here, folks. Of course, I'm sure what they do make isn't anywhere close to $15 a CD, but it's a step in the right direction towards weening them off an archaic sales model.
  • Better music? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by gamgee5273 ( 410326 ) on Tuesday November 18, 2003 @01:50AM (#7500032) Homepage Journal
    Now if they could only use this data to somehow put out better music...

    I don't think there's a lack of good music being recorded - I think there's a lack of good music being marketed.

    For every John Coltrane or Cibo Matto or Ani DiFranco song being downloaded over P2P, Britney Spears is being downloaded at rates 100 times more. Do you know how difficult it is to find the Seatbelts' (Yoko Kanno's soundtracks for Cowboy Bebop) music over P2P? And Bebop's a relatively popular anime over here. What about music that doesn't have that sort of avenue to market itself? I suspect the "better" music isn't being downloaded.

    And the stats the recording companies get show that, which reinforces the audience's "obvious need" to see Britney chasing Madonna around a bedroom in a video. Thus, they continue to market said brand of music, and we continue hearing it and thinking we want it.

    If you want to see the market shift to "better" music, then this is a case where you have to get people to not only download things over P2P, but to make sure that they buy the albums they like (yes, I said "buy" because even the little labels and the self-published artists are spending money to record - it's not free (yet)). That will help bring better music to the marketplace, but I doubt we will ever see a truly diverse popular music scene...

  • " Now if they could only use this data to somehow put out better music..."

    Better music? No no ... when they see that half the world's downloading Eminem and Britney what do you think they're gonna do, put out something revolutionary and genre-bending?

  • Couldn't they just look at the download logs on their servers serving fake songs?

  • by SiliBelgian ( 720380 ) on Tuesday November 18, 2003 @02:24AM (#7500184)
    people who share their entire hard disk on Kazaa, this could result in the production of the Biggest Hit Song of All Times...

    The name would be somewhat like explorer.exe...
  • This is a repost from a while ago.

    And besides, is anyone really suprised by this? It makes perfect sense, when you stop to think about it.
  • Marketing? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Lord_Dweomer ( 648696 ) on Tuesday November 18, 2003 @02:57AM (#7500312) Homepage
    Since they are obviously profiting from our services as a test subject, don't you think we should be able to charge them for this? Maybe it could work out so that we get to use P2P without fear of lawsuits, and they get to watch our habits.

    I dunno, but I might just be willing to give them all the marketing data/interviews they need if I didn't have to worry about lawsuits or anything like that and got to continue to download all the free music I want.

    Oh wait, they can get the marketing data AND sue us, so I guess its more profitable that way.

  • iRate radio. (Score:3, Informative)

    by Oscar_Wilde ( 170568 ) on Tuesday November 18, 2003 @04:13AM (#7500539) Homepage
    Everytime something like this comes up I'm reminded of iRate radio (I know its slightly off topic but it still comes to mind). From the iRate homepage []:
    iRATE radio is a collaborative filtering client/server mp3 player/downloader. The iRATE server has a large database of music. You rate the tracks and it uses your ratings and other people's to guess what you'll like. The tracks are downloaded from websites which allow free and legal downloads of their music.
    So there you have it. Now you can cut the RIAA out of the loop entirely.
  • wow (Score:2, Interesting)

    by unitzero ( 725049 )
    gotta marvel at the RIAA's ability to come up with new and innovative ways to shit all over us. just when I though I couldn't possibly be more disgusted with the recording industry, they come up with something new. the funny thing is, though, that the joke is still on them... I haven't bought a single CD in at least four years, and I really don't think that there's anything they can do to stop P2P, much less illegal music sharing in general. Any digital media which you are able to play back using a PC is in
  • It will never cease to amaze me how slow and plain stupid these companies are. They had the best shot at this ever when Napster existed. They sued the pants off them. Then they had an even better chance with Audiogalaxy (IMO the best of all the music sharing communities ever, nicest solution and best "supply") and then got rid of them.

    They're lucky that they got another chance with Kazaa, but what they should have done in the past was to acquire Napster or Audiogalaxy, not do anything to shut it down, but

  • by shomon2 ( 71232 ) on Tuesday November 18, 2003 @08:42AM (#7501086) Journal
    A few weeks back I pointed a friend to the creative commons website, so that he could look up information on copyright and see how it was moving forward. He was quite surprised and glad to see that things aren't the way he knew them to be in that area.

    The same happens with musicians. They don't tend to know about this. Especially young, talented people who don't necessarily get much chance to get on the internet. I remember as a teenager I would read in all the music magazines about the dream of one day being signed to a major. Nowadays to me that means mostly negative things - problems. Like a big bank loan and surviving on gigs, giving away your rights etc. But to others the dream goes on.

    Is there a good URL to point people to so that they can get clear concise guidance on why *not* to sign for one of the RIAA companies? Or even that showed what the options are, and examples of people like Ani DiFranco or companies like magnatunes and how to achieve their musical dreams and still avoid bad business decisions.

    The URLs [] I find are always centred on how bad the RIAA is, or on the consumer side but there isn't to my knowledge a good musician centred site...

  • by titaniafq ( 204582 ) <lordsplodge&gmail,com> on Tuesday November 18, 2003 @08:54AM (#7501120) Homepage
    So now the recording associations are going to think that the following is their most popular artist. teen anal cum xxx hot God help the record stores when a kid asks for that!

Q: How many IBM CPU's does it take to execute a job? A: Four; three to hold it down, and one to rip its head off.