Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Businesses Media Music The Internet

Shawn Fanning Is Back Into Digital Music 231

Posted by timothy from the in-many-ways-the-big-boy-never-left-sir dept.
prostoalex writes "News.com has a lengthy 3-page article on Shawn Fanning's new venture, Snocap. After years of development the company is coming out of the stealth mode and has apparently already secured a distribution deal with Universal Music, promising to turn file-sharers into loyal paying customers overnight. Both News.com and Associated Press are skimpy on the details, but apparently Snocap will market the technology that will (a) sniff out the files shared illegally and (b) fill the peer-to-peer networks with licensed content and serve as a clearing house for the ventures who want to license digital music, but don't want to deal with gazillion of music labels." (We mentioned Snocap last in January.)
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Shawn Fanning Is Back Into Digital Music More

Shawn Fanning Is Back Into Digital Music

Comments Filter:

  • What is the consumer interest? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 17, 2004 @09:52AM (#10841872)
    Why would I bother with this when I already have an alternative that is free of charge, more secure, and has more content?

    • Re:What is the consumer interest? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by 2nd Post! ( 213333 ) <gundbearNO@SPAMpacbell.net> on Wednesday November 17, 2004 @09:57AM (#10841920) Homepage
      An alternative that might have consumer interest would have:
      MORE content. A lot of p2p stuff is modern or pop.
      MORE secure. Lawsuits aren't indications that the current medium is secure.
      MORE useful. Being able to find what you want quickly is great.
      MORE convenient. Being able to find what you want easily is even better.

      Free isn't the only selling point. iPods sell like hotcakes despite being not free. The iTMS also happens to be a popular alternative, though it hasn't YET hit the scale of free p2p, I only see it as an eventuality when it blankets the entire globe, when the libraries are universally licensed, and when the libraries are bigger then p2p libraries.

      • Re:What is the consumer interest? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by rdc_uk ( 792215 ) on Wednesday November 17, 2004 @10:00AM (#10841945)
        "iPods sell like hotcakes despite being not free."

        iPods sell like hot-cakes because they work with free. If they didn't, they wouldn't.

      • Re:What is the consumer interest? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Jah-Wren Ryel ( 80510 ) on Wednesday November 17, 2004 @10:25AM (#10842162)
        iPods sell like hotcakes despite being not free

        They wouldn't sell at all beyond the first couple of hundred if anyone could just press a button and magically turn one ipod into two for no extra cost.

        Since copying information is now effectively a cost-free operation, any business model that depends on charging for copying information is doomed to failure in the long term.

        Charge for searching a well-maintained index of music and movies.
        Charge for the creation and release to the public domain of music and movies.
        Charge for the delivery of music and movies on a physical medium like on a CD or in a theater.
        All of those add or create value that consumers will pay for.

        But don't try to charge for moving bits around in a computer, we can do that already so it adds no value and no rational consumer will pay for it.
        • But don't try to charge for moving bits around in a computer, we can do that already so it adds no value and no rational consumer will pay for it

          Rational being the operative word. Most people are not rational.

          I agree with your sentiment though. I would absolutely pay for a well maintained index of music and movies.
        • They wouldn't sell at all beyond the first couple of hundred if anyone could just press a button and magically turn one ipod into two for no extra cost.

          Since copying information is now effectively a cost-free operation, any business model that depends on charging for copying information is doomed to failure in the long term.

          Ok then, explain the Itunes Music Store which is profitable in its own right?

          People will generally pay for something if it is right to do so, and they do not consider the price out o

          • Re:Explaint ITMS (Score:3, Insightful)

            by Overzeetop ( 214511 )
            I think he just did. iTMS is a very easy to use indexing tool which offers a huge catalog in an easily searchable way. You only pay when you find what you want, and $.99 isn't all that much if you've just dropped $400 on a player, and you can rip your existing CDs. Remember, a lot of these folks would buy the CDs anywaym and then have to rip them themselves. iTMS is a huge convenience.

            And it's all about convenience. Apple has it down pat, and people are willing to pay for that.

            Having had several newbie ex
        • I'd say "Mod parent up" or something, but you're doing fine on your own. I think you're correct, that the existing IP distribution business are doomed, or at least they're going to need to change.

          What should be looked at as an example is the difference between Cable TV and DVD sales. In an overly simplistic way, it's the difference between paying for communication infrastructure and paying for a physical medium. Well, in today's world, the medium is becoming more and more irrelevant, while the communicatio

      • That is the whole problem. Those of us who download music feal that the perceived value of a cd != the price it sells for in the shops.

        Perceived value is extremely important and explains who soda drinks can vary so much in price. Why can an event hall sell the exact same can at a ten fold the supermarket sells it? Certainly there costs can't be that much higher?

        Why exactly can toll roads charge so much when most of the people on the road make less salary in the time it takes to drive around? Because they

        • MORE convenient. Yeah paying 99 cent +++++++++ my internet connection is so convenient. I don't know what salery you make but I can spend a few minutes searching for 99 cents.

          Internet connection is a moot point here since you pay for it with either distribution method.

          The problem with current p2p is that you don't know what you are getting until you get it. You have to download 20-30 songs before you actually get what you are looking for. Don't even try looking for new stuff on p2p networks either bec
          • If you don't find the songs you want on iTMS, try allofmp3 [allofmp3.com]. I am not sure if they have as many songs as iTMS or not. Howver, the price is far better. Instead of paying by song, you pay by MB or GB of download. If you think about it, this is the best way to sell a song. It doensn't cost any more money to keep sending the same bits down a pipe, so why charge per song? I know Apple doesn't have this option because of the RIAA.

            With AllOfMP3, you can get 2.5 Gb for $25. If your average MP3 is 3.5Mb you

            • With AllOfMP3, you can get 2.5 Gb for $25. If your average MP3 is 3.5Mb you can get about 700 for that $25 vs. $700 with iTMS. Most of that $700 for iTMS will go to the RIAA and Apple, with the artists as usual getting the shaft.

              Yeah, I'm aware of that. You can do the "artist not getting much" rationalization all you want but if I'm going to purchase the song, I'd rather do so in a manner where the artist gets at least some of the money.

              Until that stops, I will never use a system like iTMS which just
        • So a few minutes = $0.99
          Lets say three minutes
          Or $0.33 a minute. If you work 8 hours a day, 40 hours a week, 4 weeks a month, that's a little over $3100. You're telling me your time is worth $19.80 an hour.

          So if you earn more than that, spending a few minutes looking for a song is actually a waste of time. If you earn, say, $25 an hour, then that minute you spent looking for music could be better spent elsewhere.
          • During the napster days I worked at an ISP. So it was very very true that napster for me was excellent value.

            Nowadays I could spend a bit more time sadly. :( damn this burst bubble.

          • Unless of course you only search for music while you are being paid by your employer. Then it's free!
          • So if you earn more than that, spending a few minutes looking for a song is actually a waste of time. If you earn, say, $25 an hour, then that minute you spent looking for music could be better spent elsewhere.

            I see comments like these every now and then, but I can't resist responding...

            This argument, or reasoning, is just useless. No one spends 24/7 working (getting paid). So quantifying the value of your time can't be done this way.
            If it were a choice of working or downloading music, then yeah, sure

    • Re:and compatible (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Technician ( 215283 ) on Wednesday November 17, 2004 @10:16AM (#10842089)
      Why would I bother with this when I already have an alternative that is free of charge, more secure, and has more content?

      These people forget that the DRM'ed content is incompatible with my living room DVD player, my car CD player and my portable MP3 player.

      I gathered from the article that a dealer could forward a copy and the reciepient could then buy it. It sounds like buying the DRM key to unlock it to me. My hardware can't use that content. Get a clue guys.. Use a universaly accepted standard.

      This is as useful to me as if you came in to my store and only had Lyra and not dollars. I'd send you away to get it exchanged into something accepted here. DRM music has the same problem. I won't take it. I can't use it. Calling it music doesn't make it playable any more than calling Lyra in the US money makes it good for buying things here.

      Just because I can use it somewhere doesn't make it universal in my location.

      • Re:and compatible (Score:3, Insightful)

        by jpellino ( 202698 )
        "These people forget that the DRM'ed content is incompatible with my living room DVD player, my car CD player and my portable MP3 player."

        Did I miss something? I have iTMS and an iPod. if I want it in my stereo, I use a $4 cable or a $100 AP Express. If I want it on my home disc player or car disc player I burn a CD.

        and my iPod *is* an MP3 player, in common parlance.

        What's the hard part?

        • Re:and compatible (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Technician ( 215283 )
          and my iPod *is* an MP3 player, in common parlance.

          Only among the hard disk players selling for over $300. Mine is not an over $300 player. It's less than $60 and holds about 700 meg on a shiny disk. I can fit about 12 CD's of stuff in it which is fine for my commute and a day at the office. I don't have to carry a CD case. In raw numbers, I think the CD MP3 players may outnumber iPods simply because they are more affordable. I know of one person at work that has the apple player, however I know 6
          • Don't take it too much for granted that next mp3 player will remain backward compatible. MP3 is still a licensed technology, and the people who own that technology don't have to keep licensing "free" versions - they could lock it up in drm just as easy as microsoft could lock up wma, and then you'd have nowhere to go to replace that $50 silver disc player when the buttons finally stop working.

            If you want free you better find one of those silver disk players that can handle ogg or some other free format. Og
      • The only way to get content for your CD player is to only use services that allow CD burning like Napster-lite. Then you can rip them back to MP3 and you always have a backup copy thats not DRMd.
        • allow CD burning like Napster-lite. Then you can rip them back

          Why spend the time, money, and format change loss?

          I simply avoid DRM in the first place. Then I only need to burn the MP3 CD and not waste time, money and conversion degradation. You are spending more to get less. Since it's worth less, I'm willing to spend less for it because it requires additional investmet to use it. Because it may be a DMCA violation, I'm not even willing to buy the DRM stuff in the first place. If I don't have it, I
    • Why would I bother with this when I already have an alternative that is free of charge, more secure, and has more content?

      Exactly.

      What the global music corporations (all five of them) don't seem to grasp is that P2P is so successful because millions of people are sharing. That means that they are deciding what they want to place in the P2P library.
      Music sellers have never before had a way to specifically identify which person likes which performer. Now a technique arises where people list on t

  • I'm already pretty loyal. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by teiresias ( 101481 ) on Wednesday November 17, 2004 @09:52AM (#10841878)
    promising to turn file-sharers into loyal paying customers overnight.

    Hasn't this already happened [apple.com]??
    • Yes, this has happened, but not in a peer-to-peer sense. This allows the peer-to-peer infrastructure to be used to distribute, but also makes sure that licensed material is tracked and accounted for.

      • Re:I'm already pretty loyal. (Score:4, Interesting)

        by DigitumDei ( 578031 ) on Wednesday November 17, 2004 @10:15AM (#10842084) Homepage Journal
        Its brilliant business idea in the end. The music industry gets paid, but its other peoples bandwidth being used.

        Imagine if iTunes only had to pay for the bandwidth to have a song downloaded once for every 100 sales. I think their accountants would be salivating at the thought.

        From the perspective of someone downloading from a country with limited international bandwidth (here in South Africa our downloads from the US can be painfully slow even with DSL), this brings up the possibility of downloading from many sources nearer to you than the original shop.
  • Material that is available for legal distribution is just too boring to attract subscribers, at least currently. (Musically that is, so Project Goethenberg [promo.net] aside)

  • Hrmmm... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 17, 2004 @09:55AM (#10841902)
    "promising to turn file-sharers into loyal paying customers overnight"

    Other side-projects include:

    Turning lead into gold. (codenamed "sorceror's" stone, for american market)

    Project "elixir"; granting licensees eternal life.

    Research into rocket powering pigs, and hell-proof cats.
    • The evil wizard SCOron owns all rights to magical, mythical wizardry and alchemy.

      You must pay 699 frogs legs per spell to use his magic.
    • Wasn't (in alchemy) the mythical philsopher's stone (not the sorcerer's stone....I have no idea that is.) that could aid in tranmutating objects without requiring the laws of equality (ie- alchemy works like an algeberic equation- for it to work both sides need to be equal. you cannot create something new out of nothing, just alter what already exists).
      • Wasn't the mythical philsopher's stone* [something] that could aid in tranmutating objects without requiring the laws of equality

        No. The mythical philosipher's stone was an alchemical creation that could be used to either turn lead into an equal weight of gold (which is, after all, theoretically possible if you could manipulate the atomic structure directly) or create the Elixer of Life, which granted immortality (which is fairly impossible, given the necessity of aging.)

        As somone else already noted, "s

  • Hope they don't turn it the other way round (Score:3, Interesting)

    by mirko ( 198274 ) on Wednesday November 17, 2004 @09:57AM (#10841921) Journal
    What if they force the Internet provider to wipe any file that is not signed by them and thus prevent these p2p networks to be used for Free contents ?
    As a provider of such files, I think I'd have a problem because I want my Free files to circulate freely so they'd better have a good sniffer.

    • What if they force the Internet provider to wipe any file that is not signed by them and thus prevent these p2p networks to be used for Free contents ?

      Because in a business model, it is not cost-effective for an ISP to monitor its own traffic. At this point, no one is going to pay more than ~$20 a month for dial-up and ~$40 a month for broadband.

      If ISPs had to start monitoring all their traffic, they'd have to buy new hardware, software, hire more employees to do the checks, hire more employees to info

  • DoubleTalk (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Locdonan ( 804414 ) on Wednesday November 17, 2004 @09:58AM (#10841932) Homepage Journal

    It seeks out and find illegal music, and then it fills the P2P networks with legal music.

    excuse me, but isn't sharing legal music still illegal? If not, then I got like 350 cd's everyone can have a copy of... come and get it!

    • Re:DoubleTalk (Score:3, Insightful)

      by marcop ( 205587 )
      "Legal" music in this context means music that the content provider is intentionally using P2P as a distribution medium.

      Second, the wording of the article isn't great. I think there is supposed to be a disconnect between the A and B point. In defense of the article author, they mention that there isn't a lot of detail mentioned. It seems that, first, it finds illegal music, flags this as illegal, and stops sharing it. Then it starts sharing out music that the music distributors want distributed over P2

    • Re:DoubleTalk (Score:2, Informative)

      by prescot6 ( 731593 )

      I think it's aiming to fill the P2P networks with licensed music. This is the kind of music that you get from iTunes or Napster that can't be played without proper authorization. They don't care if you spread those files around, because they are useless.

      And, they are probably actually a good promotion. You can look at all these files that you aren't able to listen to, and you might be more likely to subscribe to a all-you-can-eat service like Napster to unlock all of these files...

  • WMA (Score:2, Informative)

    by Sp4c3 C4d3t ( 607082 )
    Is it in WMA format? I read the article quickly and didn't see anything stating the format. But anyway, I refuse to pay for a WMA... or an MP3, even. Especially when there's DRM involved. There's no way I'm going to pay for a lossy Microsoft format.
  • What else are they offering besides Shawn's name? That won't be enough when stacked up against ITunes and other competitors. There has to be a real consumer value. The percentage of their desired customer base that has heard of Shawn is less than 1%. An even smaller percentage care if Shawn is involved or not.

  • Buisness model (Score:3, Funny)

    by CrazyJim1 ( 809850 ) on Wednesday November 17, 2004 @10:01AM (#10841964) Journal
    1: Identify illegal music downloads.

    2: ???

    3: Profit

  • How to go triple platinum overnight: (Score:5, Funny)

    by RandoX ( 828285 ) on Wednesday November 17, 2004 @10:02AM (#10841969)
    FTA:Record executives say they are also interested in a feature that will track peer-to-peer requests for songs that aren't yet licensed for digital distribution.

    Just release a single titled "Teen sex anime barnyard hack crack lolita".
    • Hey! That reminds me of a friend that told me he was looking for some lesbian pr0n to enlarge his collection... he waited for hours to d/l some 100mb movie called something like "hot lesbian action" and what did it turn out to be???
      A britney spears video clip.

  • CA Crack (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 17, 2004 @10:02AM (#10841970)
    Snocap will market the technology that will (a) sniff out the files shared illegally and (b) fill the peer-to-peer networks with licensed content and

    California crack must be pretty good these days as it still allows .COMers to have investors escape reality.

    The reality is CDs need to be priced at $2.50, $4.00 if it is good and new.

    Consumers are rebeling at paying $15 for a BTO or Abba that costs the media producers nothing to produce. Plus, many already owned the wax versions.

    The media induatry is slowly screwing itself.

    Now lets support fiber optics to a country that will put real content on the web, let the adverisers pay for it and open up WebTV for real so I can loose my cable company forever. This country has to have no time for the lawyers and stupid monopolistic legislation.
    • I'm wondering if there is a legal twist here -
      1. Create software that can plug onto P2P technology to prevent free downloading of content.
      2. Offer software for free to various P2P software projects.
      3. When developers refuse, take them to court because they won't add the copy protection plug-in.
      4. Sue anyone who's using a non-DRM client for said P2P software.
    • Back in the day artists needed the record companies because they provided a medium for distribution of the artists product, in the form of LPs, tapes, CDs, etc. The artists don't really make any money from these distributed media, but they do get their music out into the world. Artists income is primarilly from live performance, and it was healthy income so long as their albums were well distributed by a capable record company. Now, a medium for distribution (Free P2P networks) exists, and it isn't the reco

      • "Back in the day artists needed the record companies because they provided a medium for distribution of the artists product, in the form of LPs, tapes, CDs, etc."

        "The Internet is going to put the record companies out of business as soon as all the artists discover that they can distribute stuff on their own" is a bromide that's been recited on Slashdot and elsewhere for five years. The reality is that iTunes (which is a reseller of the output of the record companies) is doing gangbuster business, and "

        • The main problem is that record companies are generally screwing the artists over. I don't have the link to it, but there was quite a long article, written by a musician, explaining how little does the contract pay off. It turns out, in the bottom line, that they made just about the minimum wage, if you average it across time.

  • old LPs, 8-tracks, cassettes (Score:5, Insightful)

    by bodrell ( 665409 ) on Wednesday November 17, 2004 @10:02AM (#10841974) Journal
    What I want to know is, if the music industry is so concerned that the music we listen to be "licensed," then when will we be able to hold up an old vinyl LP and say "I have a license, so I can download mp3s from any song on this album."

    No, that would be far too logical. Better to charge the consumer for a new copy in whatever medium is in vogue, and then prosecute the people who try to (justifiably) download all the old songs they have on cassette or acetate 78 RPM record.

    I'm just saying we should clear the slate. If it's all about having a license, then let it be about that. But I think I'm owed a few credits for every album I've purchased more than once.

    • No, not far too logical; more like far too difficult.
    • This would be simple to legislate... if the entertainment and retailing industries didn't have the $10 more per CD than they're worth to pay their lobbyists and lawyers.

      I'd be willing to pay a media replacement fee to get new media for the music I've bought.

      I've never heard anybody elected to office in Washington saying, "What about the people?" with regards to these things. It seems that Fair Use and other concepts are only justifiable in either a "what's the minimum we can let them have" or if an e
    • <sardonism>
      I see, so now I can go out and buy a casette that barely plays anymore from the used record store, and then rightfully download that album so that I can actually listen to it?
      </sardonism>
      • I see, so now I can go out and buy a casette that barely plays anymore from the used record store, and then rightfully download that album so that I can actually listen to it?
        Yes! Why not? If I purchase something, I own it. I don't care (or even think about) if I buy something new or used (as in a used CD store, or buying used clothes at a salvation army store). It doesn't matter. If I pay for it, it's mine, and I have the right to use it in anyway I see fit. It's our right, and we need to fight
      • Well, um, yes. You've purchased a non-exclusive "license" to listen to the music on the tape, along with the physical media. The user who sold that tape to the store relinquished both the physical media and the license.

        If there is a cost for transmission of new data on an alternative media (or simply for transmission), you should bear that cost, but not for the cost of the license. It's worth noting that associated costs (printing, transfer to the new media, reproduction, and transit, and profit on those

  • relatable (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Mr_Silver ( 213637 ) on Wednesday November 17, 2004 @10:06AM (#10842013)
    It would not suprise me if his company has signed a deal with relatable [relatable.com] whose acoustic fingerprinting technology is used in applications such as MusicBrainz [musicbrainz.org].

    Therefore every time you submit your MP3 TRM's to MusicBrainz, who in turn pass them onto relatable, his company can use that data to identify the songs on the P2P networks.

    Far more accurate (although slower) than looking at the title of the files. Additionally, changing the metadata within the MP3 won't make a difference.

    • While useful, I only found MusicBrainz any good when the file had a tag that had two out of three for the artist, album or track name.

      To be honest, that is all I thought it used, I didn't know the TRM actually came from the music not the metadata. It doesn't seem very good then.

      • While useful, I only found MusicBrainz any good when the file had a tag that had two out of three for the artist, album or track name.

        I would hazard a guess that in order for relatable to speed up the time searching their database, they make the assumption that two out of the three tags are reasonably correct. This can quite significantly cut down on the possible entries to look up.

        If they removed this restriction, it would probably be more accurate - but take far longer to identify the track.

  • Music is like pr0n (Score:5, Insightful)

    by 5n3ak3rp1mp ( 305814 ) on Wednesday November 17, 2004 @10:20AM (#10842125) Homepage
    Music is like porn. There is tons of free porn out there, but the porn business is still booming. When a person "consumes" pornographic media, their desire for more generally increases. I believe the same goes for music. My exposure to easy music downloads has only served to increase my general interest in music. I listen to more genres and artists now than I ever thought imaginable a few years ago. And I have paid a decent amount for new music as a result, via the current channels.

  • Already tried this... (Score:4, Informative)

    by Superfreaker ( 581067 ) on Wednesday November 17, 2004 @10:23AM (#10842148) Homepage Journal
    We did something like this under contract from teh record labels. We placed drm on windows media files and distributed them on p2p networks. At first, silently delivering licenses to the media player to encourage seeding, then flipping the switch to require a payment before play.

    It was easily defeated by the fact that people don't download Windows Media Player files for audio tracks. Almost always they get mp3s w no drm. No mp4, that may be a different story. Of course, you can "wrap" an mp3 file with drm as well, but it should suffer the same fate as those files on the networks that are loops/screeching audio that only have a small inpact on the network. Just mho.

    fyi, it turned my stomach to implement such a system and we have abandoned drm completely since then.

    • Re:Already tried this... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by juuri ( 7678 )
      fyi, it turned my stomach to implement such a system and we have abandoned drm completely since then.

      But not too much, right? I mean, you did do it.

      Look people sometimes you have to stand up for what you believe in, no matter how trivial it might seem to others or how hard it might be. I've walked away from a job before so I know first hand the hardships it can create but when you do look back on your past instead of regret over an action, you feel pride in yourself. Stop rolling over.
  • And I know I speak for many people when I say: "Whatever".

    John.

    • Exactly. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by saddino ( 183491 ) on Wednesday November 17, 2004 @10:55AM (#10842443)
      Clearly the tech industry media is hungry for "rock stars" but what most of us realize is that Shawn Fanning stumbling into writing a groundbreaking application does not make him a visionary. The same holds true for Marc Andreessen.

      Someone was going to write the first successful P2P app, and someone was going to write the first successful web browser.

      But being that someone doesn't make you a somebody worth caring about when the bright lights have faded.

      • Re:Exactly. (Score:3, Insightful)

        by kryptkpr ( 180196 )
        The problem here is that yes, in hindsight, what these people have accomplished is obvious, and not really a big deal.

        But hindsight, as they say, is 20/20 .. foresight, not so much. It's very difficult to come out with the best thing since sliced bread, and these people deserve their share of credit for shaping the internet as we know it.
        • It's very difficult to come out with the best thing since sliced bread

          No, it's very unlikely to come out with the best thing since sliced bread.

          It's only very difficult to try to come out with the best thing since sliced bread.

          IMHO, this distinction separates Fanning and Andreessen from the rest (Berners-Lee, Thompson, Joy, Wall, etc.) and explains why their post-namemaking accomplishments have been less than groundbreaking. I'm not saying they don't deserve credit for writing good code - they certain
    • And I know I speak for many people when I say: "Whatever".

      Don't forget the sizeable number of people, myself included, who read the headline and said: "Who?"

  • What's new here? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by kauffee ( 177993 ) on Wednesday November 17, 2004 @10:29AM (#10842198)
    Once this is implemented, people will still have to reach into their pockets and pull out their credit cards. At that point, it becomes no different than iTunes or the "new" Napster or any of the others. Everyone downloading free music from those networks will just move on to the next free network. Is there something I'm missing here that makes this time different?
    • I believe the point you are missing is the vast majority of people, despite claims to the contrary, don't have a bit of problem with paying for something they perceive as having value. What they object to is paying more than they feel it's worth as well as not being able to use it the way they want to.

      iTunes does great and it would appear rival services are making money as well. People just don't want to pay for the distribution services when the distrobution service is unneeded at this point.
      • Actually I've read numerous times here on Slashdot that iTunes itself is hardly breaking even, and they use it to make more people buy iPods, which indeed cost a lot.
        The reason why they hardly break even is the HUGE royalties they need to pay the RIAA.

  • I fear for the kids of today (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SmallFurryCreature ( 593017 ) on Wednesday November 17, 2004 @10:41AM (#10842297) Journal
    This is a lengthy article? Geez. It would barely fill an A4. If you passed this is class as a lengthy article you would get a 1 for effort.

    Apart from being short it also repeats itself and is pretty light on the details. Basically it claims to turn an exisiting P2P application/network from having illegal files to only having legal files and legal downloads overnight. Ehm, how? and just as important. Why?

    P2P has this deal. In exchange for bandwith I get free content. With this in exchange for bandwidth and cash I get paid for content. So like iTunes and all the others except I need to upload as well? Oh and have a really crummy search?

    Right. Kazaa and others are what they are because I don't have to pay for what I download and because what is being shared is made by users. Bootlegs, old records, forgotten recordings, tiny bands. All the stuff you can't find in the shops.

    If I am going to pay for downloads I want the bloody receiver of my money to pay for the fucking bandwith and not have to download it from some guys 56k modem. Geez. Is the music industry insane or just stupid?

    • "Right. Kazaa and others are what they are because I don't have to pay for what I download and because what is being shared is made by users. Bootlegs, old records, forgotten recordings, tiny bands. All the stuff you can't find in the shops."

      The rest of your post was spot on, but I have to say you are very naive or enjoy lying to yourself if you think this is the reason Kazaa is what it is. Kazaa is and always has been about about downloading pirated material. Yes, there are other files on there that are

      • Bootlegs ain't legal, neither are old bands (thank you extended copyright) or forgotten recordings. Tiny bands can be depending on their license but yes they are the exception.

        Napster and Kazaa is less for me about the latest albums being ripped but the weird content. This weird stuff ain't legal at all. Just that I can't buy it legal either.

        So not really sugar coating it either. Just pointing out why iTunes means nothing to me. It ain't got what I want.

  • An Idea (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Darthmalt ( 775250 ) on Wednesday November 17, 2004 @10:51AM (#10842393)
    Since they are tracking d/ls they should be able to see who is being d/led and arrange payment to the artists/labels for their songs being d/led.

    The money to pay them would come from legit banner ads within the program interface. Think about how large of an audience advertisers would be able to reach. I'm not talking about the usual hit the monkey and win but legit ads for things like upcoming movies tennis shoes etc.

    As long as the banner ads werent all that obtrusive and the prog didnt install any of the crap like the spyware that comes with KaZaa I would have no problem putting up with ads in exchange for free legit music.

  • Take off like a zepplin (Score:3, Insightful)

    by pkcs11 ( 529230 ) <pkcs11 AT msn DOT com> on Wednesday November 17, 2004 @11:05AM (#10842559) Journal
    This won't fly. For many reasons, but primarily there will be no assurance that what this software removes is truly unlicensed or even the file it thinks it is. And with no way to recoup lost files, it essentially won't gain acceptance. Whoever is hailing this as anything other than draconic needs to be shot.
  • What makes a file legal vs illegal? If i rip an mp3 from my CD, encode it using old school encoders which no copyright information, no id3 or id3v2 tags, and it just so happen to be named "Britney Spears - Baby One More Time.mp3", how is a program going to know if that file is legal or illegal? It would be pretty bad if it deletes something that I created and spent time doing...even if I am a Britney lover and probably deserve to have that file deleted for being a Britney lover. But don't I have fair-use
  • who doesn't want my bandwith used to support someone else's business? (I'm guessing no.)

    In free P2P, while someone is downloading my music files, I or someone else can theoretically get something back from them. In this system, a user pays money to a third party, that points that person to my computer and uses my bandwith to deliver the file, and I cannot get any compensation. In contrast, iTunes supplies their own bandwith.

    If I am misunderstanding something, please enlighten me, because this sounds ri
  • If I'm going to be part of the distribution system (DRM'd shared files, right?), I'm going to need to be reimbursed for my upload bandwith and access to local storage on my machine by either snocap or the record labels themselves.

    I mean, if I didn't exist, they would have to serve the stuff themselves, and incur bandwith fees as a result (not per bit, but pay for bigger pipes to provide the service). Also, the distributed mechansim makes server storage less critical, lowering cost of maintenance for thei
  • I didn't know he was ever in digital music. I was pretty sure he was into P2P applications.

  • Extortion (Score:3, Informative)

    by ObsessiveMathsFreak ( 773371 ) <obsessivemathsfreakNO@SPAMeircom.net> on Wednesday November 17, 2004 @12:04PM (#10843254) Homepage Journal
    Most people seem to be missing the central point of the article.

    The idea seems to be to scan P2P networks for tracks. If the tracks on your PC have been downloaded "illegally", then the RIAA will send you a bill for the tracks, and a little extra for costs. Effectivly they will say:
    "You've got our tracks. Pay us money"

    Now you can say,
    "Tsk,Tsk. Not a shread of proof do you have private company boy, except for your(possibly falsified) records. I might have borrowed the tracks from my friends, direct exchange etc. And besides, I had to format my disk yesterday anyway."

    To which they will say(in the initial letter they sent you):
    "You can pay us the $100 you owe us now, or we will sue you under the DMCA, PATRIOT, HR2391, and just about any other bullshit law we got past the braindead zombies on capitol hill. You don't like it? We can sue you for that too. Pay us the danm money of face a lifetime of bankruptcy. P.S. Any attempts to start a protest group will also lead to instant litigation. Have a merry fucking christmas. Buy a CD for $30! Now piss off!"

    To which you will say:
    NO CARRIER
  • Just one example of a band who uploaded their own music and shared it freely. This proved to be an incredibly sound business move for them. For their evil DRM schemes to work, the monopolists will have to lobby to make giving your own music away an illegal act.

Slashdot Top Deals

"If there isn't a population problem, why is the government putting cancer in the cigarettes?" -- the elder Steptoe, c. 1970

Close