Slashdot Mirror
Help wanted: CTO at Warner Music.
Gill_Bates writes "It looks like Warner music group are looking for a CTO. I'm intrigued by the sentence that reads "Builds prototypes and evaluates alternatives for on-line music delivery, P2P warfare, copy protection, etc." " How many job descriptions include the phrase "Warfare"?
"How many job descriptions include the phrase "Warfare"?"
If Donald Rumsfield is your boss, the answer would be "All of them."
It pay's money - so there will always be someone applying. - Money make people do stupid things. - As always. Money often win over ideology. - I hope they find some braindead sucker that will do a pisspoor job.
It's time for the mucichians to wake up and understand they can do their own distribution. - The time for the big record labels are numbered. Soon they will wanish in a fading cloud of historydust. And the no-talent marketingdroids that claim they know what the "market" want will be no more....
Yes, I have an utopian dream, help me get to it.
- To understand recursion, we must first understand recursion -
God this is entertaining entertainment.I have noticed at least two tv ad campaigns that feature consumers downloading and burning music. Implying it is a cool and totally normal thing to do. I think the majors are fighting a war they have already lost.
"Don't Follow Leaders." Bob Dylan
Not many companies would put 'warfare' in a job descriptions firstly because few are in a mindset that they at war (i.e. the goal is to destroy, not that the goal is to make profit by selling goods), and secondly because not many companies can get away with it. People would think Coca-Cola completely daft if they asked for a CTO to help shut down Pepsi's website. Now mind you, pretty much everyone admits that Pepsi's actions are more or less legal. That, however, doesn't make it any less excusible because vigalantism is supposidly illegal. That's my 2*10^-2*dollars.
====
Crudely Drawn Games
How many job descriptions include the phrase "Warfare"?
When I was in the Air Force my job title did. Electronic Warefare technician
http://Lenny.com
4 great justice!
It surprised me that they were declaring p2p warfare OVERTLY, but then again, didn't Congress pass a bill that would give blank checks to allow p2p networks to be hacked by record companies, ie. distributing fake-hashed files to corrupt everything on the network and so forth?
/. effect the job application -- posting "p2p warfare" is a blatant display of corporate immorality and thuggery, and it threatens our freedom.
We should all mass apply and
How about some guerilla action here?
Wouldn't it be fun to apply for this job, and once you're in the interview process, begin espousing pro-P2P views. What if, one after the other, these guys had to confront a parade of rabid, file-sharing geeks with CTO-level qualifications?
Even better, *don't* mention your views until after you've accepted the job. Then work to sabotage Warner's "P2P warfare" efforts. Yeah, that's the ticket.
There's probably enough of you unemployed CTO's out there - who've undoubtedly spent your idle days using Kazaa - to pull of this Ken Kesey-style prank.
C'mon, baby, kiss The King.
This one?
Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known. -- Carl Sagan
According to Monster.com, 335 job descriptoins include the phrase "Warfare". You can hold such captivating jobs as:
-
How many job descriptions include the phrase "Warfare"?
Soldier, Sailor, Pilot, general, admiral, president, secretary of defense, secretary of the navy, secretary for the army, linux zealot etc etc.
All the enablers are there ready to be exploited. You will need an economic model to make it work, but how hard is it to compete with standard recording contracts for artists? To pay artists, ask for money just like NPR and come up with a formula to distribute the wealth. RIAA members are only interested in the million+ sellers anyway. Also, there is no reason not to charge a royalty for companies that want to actually make and distribute CDs with cover and label art, etc.
With all the industry players trying to piss off their customers with DRM, it shouldn't be hard to make this grow. I'd do it myself, but it isn't my core interest. I know there are lots of you out there who are that interested, and lots more like me who are interested enough to give suggestions and use these services when they become available.
At this point, Warner can do one of two things to survive: (1) change their business model, or (2) "go to war" against the many innovations that are making their business model obsolete. So it doesn't surprise me that they use the term "warfare".
It would appear that Warner is not capable of significant change. And that's easy to understand - Warner is a very old company, stuck in it's way, and hasn't had any ground-shaking innovation in the past 50 years. When you feel like crap, it's more satisfying to "go to war" than to intellegently address a serious issue.
It's kind of like Apple in the early 80's. Apple could have stuck with the comfortable Apple II line, or change. Apple changed and propelled the entire marketplace forward.
It's like IBM in the 90's... it could continue to be a big-iron shop, or change. It changed. IBM is much more of a service oriented company, embrassing the likes of Unix, Linux, and Java. They leveraged their former glory with new innovations.
But remember, like them or not, Apple and IBM have ALWAYS been innovators. Warner is more like US Steel in the 80's. US Steel could have continued to be an old-school steel producer, or change to react to new steel producing innovations happening overseas. US Steel decided to stay the course, and the steel industry in the USA is still plumetting and out-of-control.
Warner has chosen the path of US Steel.
Umm, what I read wasn't P2P warfare.. I read this:
"... evaluates alternatives for on-line music delivery, P2P warfare, copy protection, etc."
later I read:
"Analyzes all industry wide technological developments and initiatives related to music and music distribution in an effort to help company sustain its competitive advantage in the music technology marketplace."
Alternatives to P2P warfare. I think they realise its just not cost-effective to have a bunch of people sitting around trying to hack everyone who's running KaZaa.
Looks to me like they want someone to come up with realistic solutions and strategies that will work in the real world. Seems they want to 'Adapt or Die'.
"Requirements
A college degree or equivalent experience is required in engineering, computer science. Specific knowledge and experience in new media and new technologies is required."
Purely speculation: Their old CTO probably favored the old-school 'sue em all' approach, that's probably why he's lining up for food stamps, and why the particular wording of the job offer. Looks like they want a new direction, not to just bump another talking head into the post.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
Most slashbots are too lazy to write (as in with a pen, paper, a hand, and an informed mind, not as in forward email with a computer) their congresscritters let alone hit refresh in a browser once every minute for...how long? In any case, I think DDoSing wouldn't even be all that effective in promoting social change which is what we really need. What I find interesting is that they've already spelled out that the CTO must come up with a plan to engage in P2P warfare. I mean, I realize that job descriptions are all about...well...describing jobs, but it seems like they're saying, "You have complete freedom....to find a way to do what we've already decided is the best thing to do even though that's a decision the CTO should make." Isn't it the Chief Technology Officer's responsibility to say things like, "Hmm, maybe our company's current position with respect to technology, that is using the public's ignorance against them to push oppressive DRM into all digital devices, isn't working. Why don't we evaluate some other plans?" Again, I realize that they probably don't want someone who would make that statement as their CTO, but it still seems odd.
------------
Also:
Slightly OT, but there are actually two things going on here:
1. Media companies have legal permission to crack into your computer and delete files as long as they tell the gov't about it first. This doesn't give them the legal right to distribute fake files, but that activity wasn't illegal in the first place as cracking into someone else's computer and deleting their files was. I don't know if they've actually done this yet.
2. They distribute fake files on p2p networks with names that suggest they're not fake. The idea is that the fakes are released before real content, fakes spread all over the network, and real content gets hard to find because nobody bothers to delete their downloads that turn out to be fakes.
They can't fake the _hashes_ on files. If they have a rogue p2p client online, they can respond to searhes for a certain hash and try to get clients to download from them, but when legitimate p2p clients see that the bytes coming from the rogue client don't hash to what they're supposed to, those bytes won't be included in the file. The only way they could "fake the hash" is by finding another file that has exactly the same length and hash as the original file but contains different data. I don't know what fastrack/winmx/others use, but gnutella uses SHA1 hashes (or bitprint hashes which incorporate SHA1) which are designed to resist that kind of attack. In other words, if you have file (A), it is easy to find its hash (B), but it is near impossible to find another file (C) with the same hash (B) as the first file (A). Of course, as long as p2p users remain lazy and ignorant and p2p software developers don't develop features that prompt the user to identify and delete bad files, media companies won't have to fake the hash in order to frustrate users.
How about "P2P 'embracement' of a viable and powerful potential revenue stream."
This just shows that the record labels Still Don't Get It.
Sigh. This is the music BUSINESS...be clear on that. It's not charity, it's not a font of free stuff just because people have found a way into the vaults that the labels cannot block.
They cannot just "leave you alone" because, for the 400th time, the business model of the music business is that of subsidy.
IOW, 85% of CDs released fail to recoup: to earn back what it cost to make them. Fewer than 5% are profitable. This unmet cost must be shifted onto the backs of other bands, and when one hits, the price to buy it must be raised to cover the loss on the previous 85.
So, to change drastically, as many here simplistically suggest, here's the first step:
In the case of Warner Music..throw 600+ bands out on the street. Violate and void their contracts, pay the staggering legal costs, deal with the hundreds of contract-violation lawsuits, start again with a new business model.
Oh but then, how do they pay their help? They couldn't at first, so, go then they must fire the 25,000 or so people who work for Warner Music.
Ok, now, come up with a way of marketing music that the filesharers like: IOW, give it to them free, or make the cost transparent, such as a MSO (cable company) subscription surcharge. Once Warner makes enough money that way (give it 20 years or so) they can begin to hire back the 25,000 people they had to fire, and start to sign cutting edge bands that might not recoup again.
I suggest that if the labels did what many people think is "a good idea", the outcry over a few hundred thousand pink slips and thousands of newly-unsigned bands might cause a bit more of a ruckus than Warner looking for a CTO to explore distribution alternatives while keeping their bands signed and workers employed.
And please, no "they can distribute on the web!" How many tracks from MP3.com did you buy out of the 67,000 artists there? How many did you even listen to?
Unfortuntely, the whole scenario just isn't as simple as people make out, because they don't know the whole picture. It's easy to suggest massive change for a $40 billion business when you don't know the complete story, is't it?
"The pie shall be cut in half and each man shall receive.....death. I'll eat the pie."
The closest Amish village. I mean, they need someone familliar with keeping alive "horse and buggy" technology in the 21st Century!
The recording industry as currently constituted is just as obsolete.
I think it'd be a perfect fit.
Corporatism != Free Market
...it didn't include HTML, or were you declaring war on the close italic tag?
We should all mass apply and /. effect the job application -- posting "p2p warfare" is a blatant display of corporate immorality and thuggery, and it threatens our freedom.
No. That's useless and childish. What we all should do is to make sure that all of the audio/video, etc. that we have on our hard drives is what it says it is, and leave your favorate P2P client running CONSTANTLY. They want warfare? I'll give 'em warfare.
It is easy to find someone willing to do a job, harder to find someone capable. Warner is not a technology company, although it is part of AOL which allegedly is. Companies like Warner are most likely to hire senior technical management out of technology companies.
However looking through the AOL Web site it is clear that the job is hardly a top tier technology placement. Although it carries the title CTO there are many CTOs at AOLTimeWarner and this job is in the second tier.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
RIAA has campaigned for a law to exempt them from legal liability for disrupting p2p networks. That implies that they recognize the illegality of these actions. It seems likely that they are already DOSing p2p without the legal authorization they want. Doesn't this ad provide evidence that Warner is conspiring to commit illegal acts?
so what's the business model you suggest to replace it? the current model has the attractive property that it allows WB and others to speculate on bands because of the subsidy offered by the successfull ones. are you suggesting that web-based distribution can remove the need for this subsidy?
"Warner Music is cool. Wait... are they part of the RIAA? Argh"
Exactly.
Ever heard of a decoy? Someone to take the anger of consumers, someone who isn't recognisably the same as the Warner Music you might be considering buying a CD from?
Do the truth a favour: next time you want to critisize the RIAA, pick one of their member companies as your target instead.
"And Warner Brothers, who represent the Red Hot Chilli Peppers, are campaigning to make it legal to sabotage your computer in the name of 'compliance'"
The confusing thing is that I'm hard pressed to think about any
;)
attacks on P2P networks that:
1) Is not already legal today (For example, filling the network with
bogus Britney mp3s), or
2) Impacts only illegal sharing of copyrighted material instead of
killing the whole - or parts of the P2P network itself.
The purpose of the bill is to create a safe harbour for 'content
owners' that use technology to impair the sharing of copyrighted
content on P2P networks.
Given this, I think it is arguable that an effective way to stop the
sharing of copyrighted content on p2p networks without imparing
sharing of uncopyrighted works (or copyrighted by those who do not
restrict the distribution of their works) is to delete the files
containing copyrighted works from computers participating in the p2p
network. Since the Berman bill gives them a (somewhat) blank check to
break "hacking" laws in pursuit of this goal as long as they notify
the gov't first, I think they will end up doing exactly that.
However, I really should have been more specific in my first post. I
should have said:
Media companies have legal permission to crack into your computer and
delete files that contain copyrighted content as long as they
tell the gov't about it first.
-------------
What if the RIAAntiKazaa chaffing servent simply lies about the
hash. You can't check that the hash is correct before you have
downloaded the file anyway. Besides, with segmented downloading you
only need to download one segment of a file from the chaff servent to
destroy the file.
If you do SHA (or similar secure hashes) on segments of the file, it
would be possible to discard only the bad segments instead of the
whole file.
My knowledge of what's going on in p2p is limited to the gnutella
network, but here's what's happening right now:
Files are can be searched for by their SHA1 hashes and almost all
major servents support this. Currently, the only thing that the ??AA
could do to inhibit downloading (beyond what I noted in my first post
re: bad files & user laziness) would be to find out the hash of a
good file, and report that they have the file whenever they receive a
search request for it. It a user downloads the entire file from them,
the client program, upon completion of the download, will report an
error since the hash that the file should have does not match the
hash of the downloaded data. Not too serious - just some wasted
downstream bandwidth on the part of the user. This kind of attack
also costs the ??AA mega$ as they are the only source for the file:
non-SHA1-aware clients won't be able to propagate the false hash
reporting and SHA1-aware clients will dump the file as soon as it's
done downloading. In other words, the only thing the ??AA has going
for them right now is user laziness.
Here's what's going to happen in the near future:
The ??AA isn't faking hashes because they (probably) followed the
same line of reasoning. However, faking hashes can cause other
problems. Since SHA1 hashes hash all the data in the file to produce
the output hash, even a small chunk of changed data in the file will
affect whether or not the downloading servent thinks the download is
"good". If the RIAA were to report that they had the "good" file
corresponding to the "good" hash, but send "bad" data when the "good"
file is requested, they could wreak havoc on servents that support
multisource downloading. If a servent downloads even one byte from
one of the ??AA's destructive interloper nodes, trying to download
the file a bit faster by downloading from another source, the SHA1
hash calculated after the download finishes would be incorrect,
killing an otherwise successful download as you mentioned above.
As luck would have it, P2P developers have been trying to enable
partial file sharing (sharing available [downloaded] parts of
unfinished downloads) for quite some time. It turns out that
implementing this technology will render the above attack useless.
Soon, servents will support "bitprint" hashes. A bitprint hash is a
concatenation of the SHA1 hash of a file, and a hash obtained by
using the tiger-tree method. The tiger tree method:
1. Break the file up into equal size chunks. (say, 1MB)
2. Hash each chunk.
3. Concatenate adjacent chunks to make new chunks.
4. Go to step 2.
All of these hashes, done using the Tiger algorithm, form a tree
where each node has two leaves - hence Tiger-Tree. The original idea
was that servents could use this tree of hashes to ensure data
integrity when downloading pieces of a file from multiple hosts.
Since ??AA-trashed data will not hash to what it should, just like
corrupted data, those blocks will be thrown out and re-downloaded
until a good block is obtained from a non-??AA host.
In other words, the ??AA won't be able to corrupt your downloads
unless they out-bandwidth the rest of the p2p community.
There are still two (technical) issues threatening p2p and oddly
enough I think they can both be solved by strong public key
cryptography. The first is fake files - that is files containing
garbage data from the ??AA and misnamed files. The problem,
essentially, is that you don't know if the metadata reported about
the file (title, resolution, length, etc...) is accurate. However,
one of the things I've noticed about online file trading is that
files that appear there, especially movies, are tagged with short
prefixes identifying the ripping/encoding team. "[smr]", for
instance, stands for "shadow movie realm". While rips of apps and
games don't generally have these filename tags, they are generally
distributed as archives containing, along with the program, an info
file of some sort crediting the crackers. The common thread is that
most content is introduced into the network by a small number of
dedicated, talented "teams" that want credit for their work. To me,
this seems like a perfect application of digital signatures. If, upon
release of new content, the block of metadata describing that content
(title, resolution, length, etc, and bitprint hash) were
signed by the release team, then downloaders with the release team's
public key could verify which rips are genuinely what they say they
are, or more to the point, which hashes point to good files. Is it
vulnerable to other people posing as the release team and signing
data with their own keys? Sure, but over time one public key would
develop more "cred" than all of the spoofs and since the release
teams would only sign their own releases, that "best key" would be
accepted as theirs. The best thing is, this whole process can be
automated. Servents can even keep track of key validity (cred) by
themselves simply by asking the user "Is this signed file what it
says it is?" upon completion of a download.
The second issue is eavesdropping and bandwidth throttling by ISPs
(especially universities). This problem can easily be solved by
recognising that an ISP can only safely throttle what it can
identify. If all communications on p2p networks started with a raw
exchange of public keys, the first (for example) 2048 bits of p2p
connections would be different from client to client. For extreme
undetectability, servents could generate new public/private key pairs
for each new connection. All following bits would be encrypted and
unavailable to the ISP. It would seem that this technique would be
vulnerable to a man in the middle attack by the ISP; however,
consider what it would take to execute that kind of attack. The ISP
would have to modify the first (again, for example) 2048 bits of a
connection that it knows nothing about because it just initialized.
While this would gain them access to the unencrypted data stream of a
p2p connection, it would horribly confuse any other software trying
to communicate over the internet. In other words, they can only check
for p2p communications by killing all non-p2p communications. Ports
used for (at least gnutella) p2p are already random, btw.
Anyway, those are my thoughts.
Why should they care? They weren't the ones who declared war.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Honestly this is a job I would consider doing.
I will now pause for everyone to finish going rabidly insane.
OK.
Yes, there are one or two phrases in the job description that are, at least on the fact of them, objectionable to the Slashdot crowd.
My personal concerns about this are whether this is a real CTO job, where there is a person who can set technology direction on behalf of the company, or whether you would be one CTO among dozens, and have no real power to implement changes at any fundamental level.
Unless it's the real thing, it's likely not going to result in anything at all, and you can all stop your paranoid worries. And if it *is* the real thing, and they get someone competent (a big "if"), you can all stop your paranoid worries.
Now look at the big picture: why is the music industry afraid of P2P and other online digitial distribution, when it's pretty clear that the primary use for these channels is for content that they would not usually consider distributing themselves?
My answer to this question is that the eventual results of this technology, if it prospers, is going to be disintermediation of artists and consumers.
There are a number to consequences to this which are -- believe it or not -- generally undesirable, and there are a number of *other* consequences to this which break their revenue models, and damage their ability to continue to do business.
To paraphrase what I think they've realized, "you can't piss in the wind"; it's reasonable for the company to seek alternatives to protecting their revenue model -- and, as a side effect, protect the generally desirable things which come with that revenue model, such as the ability of individual bands to make enough money that they can *be* bands full time, and have a reasonable chance of paying the rent when they are 65 and no longer interesting to their former primary markets. Bands die out because they're old, or because they've lost their social relevence, or their superstar lead singer has died, or any of the dozens of fates which can befall a band. If you have to stay in school for that accounting degree "to fall back on", in the full expectation of "falling back", it *will* effect your ability to make music.
At least Warner is looking out there, and noticing that things have in fact changed out from under them, and that they need to do something, other than just "business as usual".
Actually, there are literally dozens of ways they could deal with these issues technologically; several of them even involve the record companies themselves setting up *real* P2P networks, which don't actually suck for their revenue models, like Napster or GNUtella (the first because of the central control given to a single company, the second because of lack of scalability -- neither because of real piracy concerns).
It's amusing that they've emphasized "Agile development" (corporate code from a particular corporation for "Extreme Programming"). Most likely, they already have someone in mind, and the posting is to satisfy legal requirements.
-- Terry
the current model has the attractive property that it allows WB and others to speculate on bands because of the subsidy offered by the successfull ones
Greedy accountants "speculating" over the next music craze has all but destroyed the industry.
50 years ago, in the early days of rock-n-roll, there was a very loose network of local radio stations operated by young people who loved music. They played what they wanted to play, for people who listened to what they wanted to listen to. Some guy in L.A. might get a phone-call from his buddy in New York, saying "hey man, check out this new Pink Floyd album called Dark Side of the Moon." Next week the DJ gets his hands on the record, listens too it, and by his own volition airs it because it's good.
Nowadays it's all push push push, marketroids and accountants tell DJs what to like, and what to distribute. That my friends, is a broken system.
The wrong people are deciding what we listen to, and only a very select few(I.e. those who don't have a lawyer around to tell them how hard they're getting fucked) manage to get into the industry today. So you tell me, would you rather have:
A) 600 bands a year shoved down your throat, regardless of what they sound like, represent, or say.
b) 100,000 bands available on a P2P network...and you decide who gets in based on music critics you trust, and word of mouth.
The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky
Even before P2P, I often wondered why they wouldn't at least publish lyrics on the web so that I could know which song to buy in the record store. Going to the store and singing a few lines of your favorite song to a zit-faced clerk is not the preferable way to buy music.
Maybe whomever they hire for this position will tell them that they are waaaaay behind the times and that's why they're losing profits.
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
lets restate those choices:
- 600 bands a year shoved down your throat,
but each of them with some moderate chance
of being able to make a living from their
music if people like it.
- 100,000 bands available on a P2P network, with
almost no chance of making a living because
there are no effective social networks in
place to allow discovery to take place.
i'd much rather have (b), but neither you nor anyone else has made any serious suggestions how the discovery process is going to work. mp3.com already has tens of thousands of bands listed - no mechanism exists for me to decide if i like any of them. the main mechanism i use these days is to listen to echoes (echoes.org) and check out the echoes website. what mechanism exists to get stuff "released" over p2p into the "forums" or "contexts" where i'll believe its even worth me trying a listening session?i can't disagree with your characterization of the radio business, but almost nobody does! defining the radio business like this isn't the issue - finding a workable alternative to the way it currently works is. and frankly, all the alternatives i've seen (including one that i set up (Equal Area)) have the implication that the vast majority of musicians that don't draw large crowds to live performances can forget about making a living.
CTO
.30 caliber, .50 caliber), 500.000 rounds of medium caliber ammunition (25mm) fully compatible with NATO weapons system, a set of the finest machine guns and a license to kill.
Location: Inner Bunker, CA; New York, NY
Position Type: Attack
Position Duration: Full-Time 24/7
Warner Music Group
Job Description
Warner Music Group seeks a heavy duty cyborg or mutant preferrably with stealth capabilities, and with desire to kill.
We offer a competitive salary and full benefits package, including, but not limited to, 1 million rounds per month of the finest ATK small caliber ammunition (5.56mm, 7.62mm,
Requirements:
Must obey, specially directive 4, and be tolerant to baby food.
Knowing ED-209 assembly is a plus. Also desirable is experience with flamethrowers and chainsaws.
If you are interested in this position, please submit your resume, including number of manslaughters you're accused of being involved to: acmearmy@warnerbros.com, subject: CTO.
One section says:
Tuned in to the market.... Challenges current way of thinking. Participates in new media forums.
Another Says:
Builds prototypes and evaluates alternatives for on-line music delivery, P2P warfare, copy protection, etc.
Here's something to think about- very few people spend $500/year on CDs, but a lot of them spend that much on broadband ($45/mo x 12). P2P is one of the key drivers in the broadband market, whether or not TW and others want to admit it. They could probably make just as much money giving away music for free, if they'd concentrate on selling broadband to everyone.
Music wasn't always about business. Many of the great composers were independantly wealthy, or they had a single wealthy patron. Songs and stories are even older, oftentimes they were sung by just ordinary people...in bars, at public events, etc. The lineage of music is as old as humanity itself, but only in the last 100 years or so has it transitioned into a commodity.
Up until recently the commodity way was fine because the distribution system was so costly...music was recorded onto a magnetic tape, or a record, or a CD using expensive recording equipment...then put on an airplane or a boat...and shipped overseas...those things cost money. Consumers were willing to pay because the value outwieghed the cost. But now that we have the medium to communicate music to almost anywhere in the world cheaply and quickly. We really have no reason to maintain this infrastructure any more.
If some guy vacationing in Indonesia wants to record a native island song, and then release it onto a P2P network, that's great. The whole world just benefitted from that single individual's contribution. Forever. Millions of people doing this produces an incredible amount of content. We have so much music on record now, that it would take several lifetimes to listen to it all anyway.
There are also plenty of amateur musicians(I.e. people with jobs who play during thier off time because they enjoy music) who sound better than any of todays "new" music. But nobody gets to hear them, why?
You and many others are looking for ways of salvaging the old model. But there really is no value-added benefit in the old system. Paying people's salaries costs money, and that means revenue...but why would anyone pay them? What for?
1) Anyone with a PC can create/record music quality that was unheard of as recently has 1970.
2) "Professional" musicians sound worse than many amateurs.
3) Music can be trasported anywhere instantly for almost zero cost.
4) It would take several lifetimes to listen to all the music out there now.
The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky
How many job descriptions include the phrase "Warfare"?
Here's one that probably does.
They could sell broadband, and create a nice big p2p system that only works for their customers... a nice way to make lots of cash methinks.
Send lawyers, guns, and money!
They're declaring intent to break, enter & pillage
If somebody tried this in person, they'd get shot. Its called self-defense. This is a terrorist act using Gestapo tactics by a group which produces nothing and contributes nothing to society. If YOU tried this, you'd get shot at too.
Now we're going to have to back-up all our data (we'll need to buy lots of CD & dvd burners. Bet they'll love that. And that won't disrupt P2P sites that they are alleging to go after.) Wrecking P2P hosts is not exactly neat and clean. There'll be collateral damage. Somebody's systems are going to get wrecked.
The first time that someone loses corporate data on their servers due to an xxAA attack, the lawyers will have a field day. The activity may have been caused by an employee who was using extra bandwidth in a dubious manner but a company which get its data munged by the RIAA will send the RIAA the bill and about a dozen lawyers to collect their damages.
This will DESTROY the xxAAs. Ripping MP3s might have cost some sales (and I really doubt that,) but this virtual Gestapo tactic will back fire in the worst possible way.
Attacking your clientelle is totally stupid. Beyond stupid. Its suicidal. The xxAAs clients are in for a real shock. The backlast will hit them too.
Imagine a two month stretch where NOBODY buys a CD or goes to a movie of any xxAA member. We all buy for non-members and fuck the membership.
Anf their political friends will hang them absolutely out to dry the first time a government P2P server get reamed.
The xxAAs will be legislated OUT of existence using cyber-terorist laws.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
It's a word originating in 1967.
It means, in this context, "removing the middleman". The original definition is "removal of the intermediary".
-- Terry
In retrospect, I think they will admit that shutting down Napster was a mistake. Napster was a client/server technology, but acted as a P2P application. Today's technology is distributed to a much larger extent, meaning that there is no guaranteed way of blocking or logging content.
With Napster, they had a possible infrastructure for micropayments etc. They also had the possibility of quietly monitoring the activity. Now, they are much more in the dark.
Then again, wisdom and compromise was never something the entertainment industry was very good at.
Stop the brainwash
If it's all about profits, why didn't they negotiate [seriously] with Napster? If it's all about stock prices and CEO bonuses, why are they openly declaring war on their customers? If it's all about "war", why do they insist on playing a defensive game against P2P (instead of offering competitive non-crippled alteratives)? At frist glance, it looks like they are going on the offensive with the "legalized computer crime" intiative, but it's really a desperate defensive ploy! At first I thought the CTO advertisement was a joke, but after I thought about all the foolish choices the industry has made regarding technology, it all makes sense (in a warped sort of way.)
None of the heavy hitters in the IT industry will want this losing battle on their resumes, so it's a "tier-2" opportunity at best. This is a classic example of an IT job to be avoided:
I view it as the techie equivalent of being Saddam's "Chief of Air Defense". Whoever gets this job is going to be thoroughly outgunned by the "evil ones".
Oddly enough, there is a way for someone to be successful in this job, but it involves more diplomacy and negotiation than technology. The problem to be solved is inside Warner, not outside.