Slashdot Mirror

I'm not sure I agree with you. Somone new could well come along with an alternate business model that would easily upset the archaic retail system

Well... I just looked at the Divendo site you linked and I can't imagine a worse business model to go with.

To quote the site: How it works: Start by purchasing the songs you want. For each copy of a song that you then help distribute (for each copy that other Divendo users then buy from you), you get paid a share (1/6th) of the cost of the song. Distribute atleast six copies and you are reimbursed the full cost of the song. It's that simple. And you can always continue to relay copies in excess of the initial six to earn money over and above the cost of the song.

Surely, I'm not the only one who sees this as a pyramid scam? If you're one of the first people to discover a band, you might get your money back, but 95% of the transactions will be for full price, which will most likely be more than ITunes... I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that Divendo will not be lasting.

I agree. Get music for free is the mantra of the day.

But what if you could take that to the next level and get paid for sharing your purchased music. What would you rather have then?

• A system that allows you to download music for free (and maybe illegally so)?
• Or a system where you pay for music but which then allows you to get paid too for sharing it -- and which infact allows you to recoup more than the original price that you paid for the song itself.

I agree. Get music for free is the mantra of the day.

But what if you could take that to the next level and get paid for sharing your purchased music. What would you rather have then?

• A system that allows you to download music for free (and maybe illegally so)?
• Or a system where you pay for music but which then allows you to get paid too for sharing it -- and which infact allows you to recoup more than the original price that you paid for the song itself.

I'm not sure I agree with you.

Somone new could well come along with an alternate business model that would easily upset the archaic retail system (from having simply moved terrestrial retail to the internet) that Apple is built on and that MSFT too is looking to base itself on.

It's too early to make a call. I mean even the million+ traffic on iTunes right now is a small percentage of the billion+ exchanged and transacted over P2P right now. Once again too early to call coz you never know what way legistation will rear it's ugly head and how effective it will if at all if it comes to a legistated crack-down on P2P.

Firstly, I'm all for DRM free content too. In all it's entirity, DRM is such a false hope anyway for now.. or for at least as long as we still need to bridge the digital-analog divide in order to render music perceptible to us.

Secondly, on the evils of the record industry and it's plague of the record labels, I think we should do well to ensure that musicians are rightly compensated by making use of services such Divendo and Mercora that are seemingly "non-feudal" and apparentely "more appropriate" in a contemporary context.

.. hardly an improvement over current pricing ..

True and actually more like hardly any improvement on the terrestrial retail model at all.

The real revolution in sharing music and retailing content online is coming from some of the smaller and more innovative (although little heard of) companies like Divendo and Mercora.

Couldn't agree with you any more.

But still, if you truly want to be able to recoup all those "costs" and make some money over and above the cost of the music you purchase by sharing it.. try Divendo

I agree with your doubts on the workability of this.

Additionally, I was wondering:

1. If the profits are going to be divvied based on a tracking system, wouldn't a system like that vulnerable to highjacking -- an artist / label setting up multiple download servers transacting between themselves across interchangeable IP address. This is unlike radio, where the control is in the hand of the content pusher and easier to regulate versus here where it is also with content puller too. That duality makes it more vulnerable to hijacking.
2. This would effectively kill the "gatekeepers to the land of distribution" ability of the record-labels -- and that would ensure a serious lack of support from them. The ability of the record-labels is clearly diluted in the age of the internet, but that they still have legality from it. Essentially, atleast in the near term, a solution like this could well plummet to oblivion from lack of a decent library of content in the face of a record-label boycott.
3. There are so many other new solutions coming up that are more bent on driving user choice (versus compulsory / obligatory licensing) and that ensure a more legal regime from incetivizing pay-for-doanloads rather than -- again -- compulsory / obligatory licensing regimes in one form or the other. Incentive driven pay-to-share services that drive consumers to pay will surely be more effective that those that obligate / force them to do so.

I think that the EFF is getting carried away by "rigtheousness" here.

All this talk about record labels and their antics to shorthcange both musicians and fans can get a bit overbearing at times.

Why do we even need to have the record labels around today.. definitely not to keep getting milked by their overtly leechy behaviour. Record labels held some merit and actually more leeway in the time before digital distribution became a reality. But technology today can directly link content-creators and content end-consumers without the need for uneccessary overbearing control in the hands of the distributors.

Now it is only a matter of time before new technologies such as Divendo usurp the labels from their monopolistic position and return power back to the consumers and to the content creators.