Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


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

RIAA Supporting Commercial P2P 307

Posted by Zonk from the effective-marketing dept.
cgibby98 writes "The AP reports: 'In the last few months, major record labels have signed licensing deals with companies working to field file-swapping services that would block unauthorized files from being traded online.' Most interesting is a service called Peer Impact, which 'can be used to find and purchase tracks from an initial catalog of a half-million songs from all the major labels.... After a user buys a song from Peer Impact, future buyers get it from that member -- or others who have gotten it in the meantime -- instead of from a central server. Users have to pay for each track they download, but sharing songs they've purchased from Peer Impact earns them credits they can spend on the service.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

RIAA Supporting Commercial P2P More

RIAA Supporting Commercial P2P

Comments Filter:

  • Ooh I can't wait (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 24, 2005 @08:17AM (#12899717)
    wait so they get to use my bandwidth and charge me per song?

    SIGN ME UP!

  • So.. (Score:3, Funny)

    by Turn-X Alphonse ( 789240 ) on Friday June 24, 2005 @08:17AM (#12899722) Journal
    So it's bit torrent but they charge you for it?

    "Here, have a nice MP3, it'll costyou X amount of bandwidth and $1"

    Yea I see THAT working.. cough..

    • Re:So.. (Score:2, Interesting)

      by AviLazar ( 741826 )
      Except they are not charging you for your bandwidth - that is a charge from your ISP and you cannot reasonably hold a website accountable for your bandwidth if you go and visit them voluntarily.

      It's like driving to the mall, and telling the store owner they need to pay you 35 cents per mile. Ridiculous huh? No offense, but so is your statement about the bandwidth cost.
      • It's like driving to the mall, and telling the store owner they need to pay you 35 cents per mile.

        I think he was referring more to the part where you allow your bandwidth to be used to further redistribute their material. More akin to the mall store owner telling you that even though you bought their goods, you need to drop a box off at their distribution center, and give the employees a ride home.

        That said, they are compensating you in the form of free merchandise (earned by credits), so it's a novel id

        • I think he was referring more to the part where you allow your bandwidth to be used to further redistribute their material. More akin to the mall store owner telling you that even though you bought their goods, you need to drop a box off at their distribution center, and give the employees a ride home. That said, they are compensating you in the form of free merchandise (earned by credits), so it's a novel ideal, and might be workable.

          I appologize for not speaking clearly at all. I meant that, however,

      • Except they are not charging you for your bandwidth - that is a charge from your ISP and you cannot reasonably hold a website accountable for your bandwidth if you go and visit them voluntarily.

        Ladies and gentlemen, we've reached a new high at Slashdot. Not only can people not be bothered to RTFA, now they can't be bothere to RTF summary.

        We're not talking about the cost of bandwidth to DOWNLOAD the song, we're talking about the cost of bandwidth to UPLOAD the song to others!

        Duh, P2P application,

    • It's like the Wal-Mart philosophy. You make the customer think they're getting a cheap prices, but really they're just soaking up the costs you normally would have had to bear in other areas, so it appears cheaper but it isn't. (For Wal-Mart this means most of your hourly employees are on government healthcare; with this sytem, it means that the user bears the cost of bandwidth, electricity, time, etc.)

  • double dip (Score:5, Funny)

    by udderly ( 890305 ) on Friday June 24, 2005 @08:17AM (#12899725)
    Wow--looks like they've found a way to get paid from one customer for using another customer's bandwidth. Oh well...it's good work if you can get it.

    • Re:double dip (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Actually, with peer impact you have the option of sharing songs after you buy them. By sharing the song though if another user downloads it off of your computer you earn credit toward future purposes. So you can earn credit by sharing your songs for others to use. Of course if you choose not to then users won't be able to download songs from you.

  • Oh my.. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by elemur ( 7613 ) on Friday June 24, 2005 @08:20AM (#12899745)
    Is the RIAA actually going to try and work with technology? I thought the jamming the head in the sand and yelling aproach was working so well..

    This isn't actually a bad idea from a service prospective.. you have your users handling the bulk of the traffic loads, users get songs faster with swarming techniques, and the RIAA gets money. I mean.. the artist.. its all about the artist remember.

    I don't know that I would use their service, but trying to work with technology and doing something new is lots better than their previous litigation efforts.

    (Of course, I'm assuming this is built on Windows DRM.. ah well.. Are they going to be so restrictive as to DRM limit the files to remove all usefullness to the user? No CD burning, coping to devices.. heck.. copying to my iPod? Oh wait, they said that was Apple's fault for not using an *open* format like MS's..)
    • (Of course, I'm assuming this is built on Windows DRM.. ah well.. Are they going to be so restrictive as to DRM limit the files to remove all usefullness to the user? No CD burning, coping to devices.. heck.. copying to my iPod? Oh wait, they said that was Apple's fault for not using an *open* format like MS's..)

      Well, it is Apple's fault that they're not licensing AAC with DRM out. I love the device, but I'm not happy with Apple's behavior in the music marketplace.
    • (Of course, I'm assuming this is built on Windows DRM.. ah well.. Are they going to be so restrictive as to DRM limit the files to remove all usefullness to the user? No CD burning, coping to devices.. heck.. copying to my iPod? Oh wait, they said that was Apple's fault for not using an *open* format like MS's..)

      I'm a happy iPod owner myself, but the issue here is that while Apple's format (AAC) is open, it's DRM isn't. Remember the whole deal with Real and Apple? The fact of the matter is that no one i

  • Article Text (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    LOS ANGELES -- Four years after it shuttered the original Napster with a legal assault, the recording industry is taking a different approach to online file-swapping: If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.

    Recording companies have begun taking steps to legitimize the peer-to-peer technology that lets computer users share songs, video and other files with one another online.

    However the U.S. Supreme Court rules in a file-swapping decision expected as early as Thursday, the technology appears irrepres

  • Thanks but no thanks (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Rosco P. Coltrane ( 209368 ) on Friday June 24, 2005 @08:21AM (#12899754)
    I don't actually disagree with the idea (although coming from the RIAA, it certainly feels like Dr. Mengele taking up pediatrics). But I mean, look at the "artists" they propose: Gwen Stefani, Will Smith, 50 cent... I think I'll stay on conventional illegal P2P for now, thank you very much, until they propose music for download.

  • Reasonable... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Heem ( 448667 ) on Friday June 24, 2005 @08:22AM (#12899762) Homepage Journal
    As long as the prices are low (i'm sure they won't be) and the credits earned for sharing the file are fair, then this sounds like a reasonable compromise.

    We get music, legally, and affordably (hopefully). We also have the opportunity to earn credits for using our bandwidth.

    They get money, which is all they really want anyway.

  • how long (Score:5, Interesting)

    by udderly ( 890305 ) on Friday June 24, 2005 @08:22AM (#12899765)
    Users have to pay for each track they download, but sharing songs they've purchased from Peer Impact earns them credits they can spend on the service.

    And how long will it take until someone figures out a way to manipulate the system to earn the credits without actually sharing? I can see it now--'You have 20,000,000 credits, which is enough to purchase 500,000 songs.'

    • Re:how long (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Heem ( 448667 ) on Friday June 24, 2005 @08:27AM (#12899825) Homepage Journal
      more like..

      "You have 20,000,000 credits, which is enough to purchase 3 songs, but only from this list of one hit wonder bands, from their albums that did not contain said hit."
    • And how long will it take until someone figures out a way to manipulate the system to earn the credits without actually sharing? I can see it now--'You have 20,000,000 credits, which is enough to purchase 500,000 songs.'
      And for those of us that already have most of the common songs? My first day of use may look something like this:

      Welcome to Peer Impact! You have downloaded 5 songs for a total of 500 PI bucks! You are currently sharing 13488 songs for a total credit of 3372 PI bucks.

  • This one makes sense. They get money for the song, you get credits for helping distribute it with which you can buy more songs. As long as the credits required for your free download aren't insane, this is rather well thought out.

  • Reflections (Score:5, Informative)

    by myrick ( 893932 ) * <amyrick&gmail,com> on Friday June 24, 2005 @08:26AM (#12899808) Journal
    So the RIAA is at least trying to tap into a fantastic resource for content distribution, albeit five years too late. The problem, as with all current implementations of "legal" online music stores, is that this is going to be too restrictive. As with most /.'ers and most folks in general, if I purchase music, I expect to be able to use it however I like. Most troublesome to the geeks is that it forces Windows and WMA. Most troublesome to the mass market is that it doesn't support the iPod. How can you expect mass-adoption if you don't even support the media player with the largest market share?

    This service's restrictions will keep it from being a major player, and until the RIAA gets it that no one will change until they open up their restrictions, piracy will always be huge, and the one music store that supports the most popular player will remain the most popular option (and only option for many) for purchasing legal music.

    This market needs competition! Be creative, RIAA!

    • The market does not NEED competition because the RIAA is a monopoly. They love how the market is set up now and there's no reason for anything to change. Beyond that, people are stupid and will choose convenience over fair use and quality. I have people walking into my record store and telling me they can get a particular album on iTunes for only a dollar more! And they consider this a good thing! Trust me, the educated "Slashdotters" are outnumbered 10 million to one in this case. Didn't a report jus

  • profit! (Score:3, Funny)

    by Wizard of OS ( 111213 ) on Friday June 24, 2005 @08:26AM (#12899810)
    1. buy all songs currently in top10 from your 100mbit university connection
    2. wait untel the rest of the world downloads them from you, where you earn credits
    3. you buy more songs, but now with the credits
    4. people download more songs from you
    5. repeat step 3
    6. profit! (or at least, free legal songs).

    For RIAA, this can only work if they give very little credits to uploaders.
    • No, they just need to have some sort of "margin". An upload can never be worth more than a song. But if they let you get one free song for every two you upload, or even 9 for every 10 you upload, it could work very well for them.
    • Maybe if you're the first one on the service, but the top10 will be bought up pretty quick and your share of the credits will rapidly approach 0.

      On the other hand, if you could figure out the musical tastes of specific demographics such as modem users and people who are paranoid about leaving their P2P client up then maybe you'd be onto something...
    • For RIAA, this can only work if they give very little credits to uploaders.

      So long as the credit is less than the cost of downloading one song, they're making money.

      If 1 song costs $1, and you got a $0.90 credit for every upload

      $1 - You downloaded the song
      $10 - 10 people download the song from you
      ($9) - You spend your free credits on 9 songs

      They made $11 on 20 downloads. Continue ad inifitum and it's still making money, considering the costs on their end of running the system are pretty minimal.

      For e
    • ...they change the licensing agreement!

      and wasn't the point of p2p to create diversity past the 500,000 songs on the "networks?" isn't the idea that a sigle point of access couldn't handle the download requests? is this really the case?

      what a drag!

  • This makes my physically ill. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ZackSchil ( 560462 ) on Friday June 24, 2005 @08:27AM (#12899820)
    How is it even possible that the RIAA things this is a good idea?! This is quite possibly the stupid thing I've ever heard of. In fact, I think I've heard this buisiness plan before. Does anyone recall the Scour Network? Basically it was a napster-era general use peer to peer service that got taken down and ressurected as a pay service. Basically, users had to pay to use lame content that they hosted themselves for others to download. You're paying a service to use your own connection for them. The idea of being compensated for this with a points system is laughable. People share music on peer to peer services because they love music and they want everyone to enjoy the songs that they have in their collection. People download songs on peer to peer networks because it's free, convenient, and offers a great selection.

    What the RIAA has done is taken the bad parts about legitimate music (paying, poor selection, hassle) and merged them with the downsides of Peer to Peer file sharing (slow download speeds, having to upload on an asymmetrical connection). The rewards system seems to be a new concept but overall, they've taken the downsides of two distribution methods and are sure to fail, as others have in the past using this same exact strategy. Sometimes I wonder if they live in their own little magic world where ideas like this sound less retarded, because that's the only logical explanation I can come up with for the creation of this service.
    • Alright Chicken Little...sorry obligatory troll.

      Anyways, I'm pleased the RIAA is at least making a stab, even if it is a poor one, at joining the internet revolution [I mean Gore only invented it nine years ago!]. It's not perfect and lots needs to be done but the sky is not falling :)
    • I have read dozens of posts complaining that this idea sucks, but I have yet to hear someone put out a better plan. You currently have all you can eat DRM sites, pay per download sites, and now P2P pay per download with credits for providing bandwidth. Short of declaring that piracy is legal and anyone can download whatever they want for free, what exactly is it more that you could possibly want?

      I personally have just stopped paying for music. If I can't get it for free, I don't get it. I don't pirate,
      • I have no problem with the iTunes music store, especially since no steps have been takin in quite a while to hinder people from decrypting songs purchased there. I have no issue paying for music but this buisiness model is stupid and has failed before.

      • Here's what I really want (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Sycraft-fu ( 314770 ) on Friday June 24, 2005 @11:13AM (#12901452)
        I want a site run by the recording labels, preferably all of them together. You sign up for an account for a reasonable rate, maybe $20/year or something. This buys you access to the site. The site then contains a database of all their music. I mean all of it, less popular music, stuff out of print, etc. Digital storage is cheap, there's no excuse. The site allows you to browse the libraries by type, artist, related music, etc. It suggests new music to you based off of past buys, or what you are looking at now. You can preview tracks, probably at a decreased quality and only a clip.

        Sales would be credit based, you buy song credits, probably $0.50 per song, in increments that are economicly feasable, like $10 or something. Then when you want a song, you tell it to download that. The song is sent from their high speed datacentre(s) to you. I'd have two versions available, a normal compressed quality like 128k OGG or something for a credit, or the full loslessly compressed track for 2 (costs more bandwidth). When feasable I'd offer high resolution orignal masters at 24-bit and high frequency rates as well.

        A system like this I would use because of the simplicity and access to what I want. If I could really get the music I like, all of it, and get it at a good quality, I have no problem paying for it.

        That would be my ideal service.
  • Wow... It's a good thing they weren't able to get P2P outlawed or else they'd not be able to use this distribution method.

    I think it's encouraging that they're trying to find solutions that don't simply result in the wholesale destruction of technologies.
  • ... but they want US to provide THEM with the infrastructure to do it.

    That's like a supermarket selling you oranges, but making you pick them up from the supplier yourself.

    At least with iTunes I know that some of the price of a track goes towards maintaining servers, bandwidth etc.

    If this service is not significantly cheaper than iTunes and the other centralised services then they are taking the piss.

    But then who am I kidding, of course it won't be.

    Paul
    • That's like a supermarket selling you oranges, but making you pick them up from the supplier yourself.

      No, it's more like the supermarket charging you to sell their oranges. Sure, you get to eat a few on the job but in the end, you're paying them to work there.
  • While I see this, in principle, as a step in the right direction, it is the details that will make or break just how good of a deal this seems to be for the customer (notice I did not say "consumer").

    Specifically, by what specific mechanism is the customer given credit for sharing the bandwidth load? How much credit per KB/MB/GB shared? Can they use these credits on all items, or just certain ones (e.g. loser/junk/sale items)? When do the credits expire? How many members/custmers will be allowed to par
  • - All of the crap from p2p.
    - None of the goodness.
    - DRM on top.

    This will be reaaaaal popular.
    • That's exactly the problem. The music you download will be DRM'd to hell. If it was unencombered, sign me up... or since it'd have to be in the software (as you can't brand the MP3 file on your own machine because others get it) I see a lovely patch coming out in the 'export from media library' function... though then I see FORCED protocol changes and new releases every month... Oh that'll be fun.

      -M
    • - All of the crap from p2p.

      Not sure about that. The big problems with P2P are:

      1. Getting online on a decentralized network. The network only has to be decentralized because it's illegal, this network only trades in authorised files so it's perfectly legal, hence the problem doesn't exit.

      2. Getting bad files. You can't, because they're only allowing upload/download of authorised files, so the content is under central control -- you *can't* find a bad file on this network. Unles you count those Brit

  • nifty (Score:2, Informative)

    by .killedkenny ( 589139 )
    Peer Impact users can earn up to 10% of the price of shared tracks by becoming "NoiseMakers", music activists who pester others in chat rooms, email, message board postings, etc.

  • IIRC (Score:5, Insightful)

    by nsasch ( 827844 ) on Friday June 24, 2005 @08:32AM (#12899873)
    My cable ISP has something in their TOS that says I can not use my connection for profit (making money for my bandwidth). According to that, there's no way I can use this P2P legally if I get credits for my bandwidth which can be used to purchase things which normally cost a set amount.
  • Apparently, not all uses of p2p technology [drmwatch.com] are illegal after all...someone send Senator Hatch [senate.gov] a note on this, will ya?

  • Wow- an actually interesting idea (Score:5, Insightful)

    by edremy ( 36408 ) on Friday June 24, 2005 @08:34AM (#12899890) Journal
    While I'll be really interested in seeing how this works in reality, the basic idea is quite clever.

    Since you get "credits" for letting people download from you, the P2P leech problem simply goes away- *everyone* not on dialup is going to want to be a server. The RIAA/record labels will spend close to 0 on bandwidth- a few seed copies and purchase info is all they need.

    Presumeably they'll have some way to make sure only good copies stay on the network, thus removing the whole "I can't get the entire album at a decent bitrate, and Track 3 is all messed up" problem so common in current P2P.

    If they get their entire catalog out fast, they could also return to the good old days of having a massive variety of stuff to sample from. This is still the problem with iTunes- obscure stuff just doesn't exist yet for whatever reason. Here you dump off one copy of some wierd goth/emo/trance/metal hybrid from Eastfarkistan and you'll get a few people to host it.

    Of course, being the major album labels, they'll probably only seed the latest copies of Jessica Simpson and (insert latest dead rapper) at 64 kbit/second while managing to use 1MB/sec of bandwidth for DRM checks, but we'll see.

  • DRM (Score:2)

    by argoff ( 142580 )
    My impression is that the next generation of stuff being pushed by the *AA is going to be much cheaper and offer much more incentive to use. But lets make no mistake about it, a pirannah painted pink and fluffy is still a pirannah. This is only the industries attempt to ease people into using DRM technologies at any cost. Once they get the noose arround your neck, you can be sure that it will slowly, but certainly tighten.

  • Supreme Court (Score:4)

    by jasonmicron ( 807603 ) on Friday June 24, 2005 @08:36AM (#12899913)
    From TFA so it is not off-topic:

    The Supreme Court is considering whether companies behind unrestricted file-sharing services -- Grokster and Morpheus -- should be liable for copyright infringement.

    Do the labels think that the Supreme Court has any say in the online music world or technology? Sure it can regulate hardware manufacturers, developers and programmers but it can't regulate the use of the software.

    Whatever the supreme court decides will already be benign when they reach a decision. New technology will be out or older technology more utilized (such as Usenet or private FTP servers). I say bring it because the only people that are going down are the ones that punch their hardest into thin air.

    • Whatever the supreme court decides will already be benign when they reach a decision.

      Tell that to the people sued into the ground if the Supreme Court decides that companies making this software are indeed liable for infringement from its use. The Supreme Court has amazing authority and can easily release a ruling--binding on the lower courts--that is so broad that it encompasses that new technology in addition to the two specific programs under consideration.

      Yes, there will always be ways to swap m

  • no, thanks (Score:2, Interesting)

    by lovebyte ( 81275 )
    Reading the FAQ gives plenty of reasons not to use this service:
    - No ipod support: No, unfortunately Peer Impact(TM) does not support iPod technology at this time.
    - Songs format: Songs purchased in Peer Impact(TM) are provided in Windows Media Application format (WMA) and are protected via Microsoft DRM.
    - Firewall: If your PC is protected by a firewall, you can still act as a source of content to other users and earn Peer Cash. However, PCs seen as firewalls can only act as a source to non-firewalled users
    • No ipod support: No, unfortunately Peer Impact(TM) does not support iPod technology at this time.

      Perhaps the converse of this is the real problem?

    • Those reasons are good, but IMHO the greatest reason not to use commercial P2P services is not technical: why would I give away my upstream bandwidth so that companies may profit from it?

      Not going to happen. I'll stick to iTMS.

  • From their FAQ:

    Q: In what file format does music purchased from Peer Impact come, and how is it protected?


    A: Songs purchased in Peer Impact(TM) are provided in Windows Media Application format (WMA) and are protected via Microsoft DRM. Up to three licenses are available for each song purchased.

    This, pretty much, eliminates non-Windows OSes at the moment. Since they are doing this to make money, I'm guessing they'll want the biggest possible audience which means Windows users. Since new Macs b

  • From the FAQ (bolding mine, of course):
    Q: Will Peer Impact work from behind a firewall?
    A: If your PC is protected by a firewall, you can still act as a source of content to other users and earn Peer Cash. However, PCs seen as firewalls can only act as a source to non-firewalled users, never to other firewalled PCs. Therefore, to MAXIMIZE YOUR EARNING POTENTIAL, you should really make an effort to open your firewall. To determine whether you are seen as a firewalled user or not, go to "Preferences" unde

  • A Modest Proposal (Score:5, Funny)

    by ZackSchil ( 560462 ) on Friday June 24, 2005 @08:48AM (#12900028)
    1.) Set up service with the downsides of buying music (having to pay, shitty RIAA-only selection)
    2.) Match that with the downsides of peer to peer file sharing (having to upload, disorganization, no physical cd)
    3.) Slap on some draconian Microsoft DRM for good measure
    4.) ???
    5.) Chapter 11!

    Note: Step 4 may or may not be an earthquake caused by everyone on the planet going "huh?!" at the same time.

    Also, I needed a title for the post so I made a random one and now all I can think of is eating babies.
  • It sounds like the industry wants to use our hard-earned bandwidth, and not provide us a benefit for it. It's very simple- They don't need the bandwidth and infrastructure costs of sending all of those files, so there's no limitation to how much crap they can send our way at whatever quality they choose.

    This is just a way to milk consumers. I know most North American broadband users just don't care, but what about dialup? What about metered T1's? What about business users who pay by volume or sustained
  • What would prevent the RIAA from including a routine that searches your entire HD for music files, then reports the list to the RIAA/bills you automatically for all songs that you have no license for?
    • Oh... I don't know... Common sense?

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

        by hcdejong ( 561314 )
        Imagine a more subtle approach: thanks to their filesharing app, the RIAA can link IP addresses to name/address data. Then mine IP addresses from other p2p networks, and rather than having to go through the tedious process of getting the name/address data out of the ISP, the RIAA can just look it up in their own database.
  • One of the questions in the FAQ says that it supports MP3, wav etc. Then it goes on to say iPod and iTunes. I'm confused. MP3's and wav files can be played on my iPod, so what's the big fuss?
  • In general, I don't really like the idea of paying any money for low quality music (meaning lower than at least 320 kbps mp3 quality). Added to that I won't pay for no company who sells only wma, I don't want no wma. Then add to the above that in the hypothetical case that I bought music online, I'd very much better give my money to Apple than feeding the mouths of the RIAA&co., the organization which constantly keeps climbing up on my most-hated list.

    And this point-based bandwidth sharing reward syst
  • This would only stop the 'uninformed', as people that want to trade in copyright infringement materials will just use other networks..

    And in time, those files would filter back to the 'consumer' networks. Back to square one.
  • There is a good tip in their FAQs. The capital letters were put in by them
    Therefore, to MAXIMIZE YOUR EARNING POTENTIAL, you should really make an effort to open your firewall
  • This move would seem to indicate that the RIAA companies have accepted that P2P is a legitimate distribution vehicle, but they still do not get that P2P will let them drastically increase shipments and revenues if they'd only listen to their customers.

    CDs no longer represent the value they used to and there is a lot more competition for the 'young, foolish, and flush' demographic.

    When I was at school in the mid 90s, DVDs didn't exists, maybe a quarter of students had a computer, and nobody (at least in th
  • Hmmmm

    1. P2P service.
    2. ???
    3. Bandwidth - Credits = Profit! (?)

    Is this model economically viable?
  • Is part of the alure of P2P and huge p2p networks is not just getting free music. It is the ability to get ANY music you want. You are not limited to what they think might be the top 1 million sellable songs.

    I Might want to listen to Croatian rock... I might want to listen to some Russian heavy metal... I might want to listen to some South African Youth Choir... My chances of finding that on iTunes is slim..

    Until Ligitimate music services can offer a library of hundreds of millions of songs from every ge
  • If people are willing to pay for and use this service, then I'm all for it. By all indications I have seen so far such as the popularity of iTunes and similar services, I think it'll be very accepted. (Now if they start to build and sell some home appliances that will do this without a "PC" then all the better right?)

    So once this becomes big and popular, will the RIAA finally **STFU**???

Slashdot Top Deals

The truth of a proposition has nothing to do with its credibility. And vice versa.

Close