Cringely on P2P

Wait a second... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-11-29 14:17 · Score: 2, Funny

This is a complete and total non-story, even according to the "story."

Nothing new there, but as usual, the interesting part is what SlashDotters will say here afterward.

It's like if I invite you over for dinner, don't serve it, and then say "The best part of dinner is the discussion during the meal." Something is missing!

Re:Wait a second... by c.derby · 2002-11-29 15:19 · Score: 2, Funny

hey, at least it's not a repost! :)

--
-- derby
Re:Wait a second... by xmedar · 2002-11-29 16:34 · Score: 0, Flamebait

It is a story, one about how even those that purport to know something really know nothing. For example there was a Sigourny Weaver movie made on Digital Video for less than $150K, and alot of us /.ers have seen the Platrix and South Powers and lots of other great short animation on the net, lets look at the simple economics, movie making equipment is cheaper than ever, mainly due to DV and computer animation / editing, you can't sneeze in LA without hitting a wannabe actor/actress parking cars or waiting tables, not to mention the hordes of stage acting talent in every major city on the planet, sets can be digitally created, who knows maybe one day all films will be shot on blue screens and the set added digitally later. What is left for lavish expenses? Costumes? Cringelys article is a tour de force of the type of myopic thinking that all these "pundits" engage in, and if he's really good in ten years he'll claim my writing as his own and be praised as a visionary. /cynical bastard

--
Any sufficiently advanced man is indistinguishable from God
Re:Wait a second... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-12-04 05:50 · Score: 0

Poor moderation (flamebait? c'mon!) avenged in meta, December 4 2002.

Huh? by szort · 2002-11-29 14:17 · Score: 0, Troll

What is this about "interesting" slashdot posters? I only read the comments for the trolls.

Scaling by Trusty+Penfold · 2002-11-29 14:19 · Score: 2, Insightful

Is P2P still alive? I gave up using it when Napster started collapsing under its own weight. This was before it got shutdown through the courts, of course.

As the number of nodes increased, searches took longer and longer until they just started timing out and failing altogether.

Until P2P developers solve these tricky problems, I don't see how P2P can resurrect itself.

Re:Scaling by netsharc · 2002-11-29 14:29 · Score: 2

"This is not the network you're looking for." Well, P2P networks get to live as long as they stay hidden enough for the in-the-know only, once they get printed on the front page of newspapers the RIAA lawyers will just have to follow the trail of the 13 year old N-Stink fans. It's all in the balance, they need enough users to have good content, but not too many that they start showing up in the RIAA radar.

KaZaA seems to be thriving, there's eDonkey, Gnutella, and numerous others.

--
What time is it/will be over there? Check with my iPhone app!
Re:Scaling by TekReggard · 2002-11-29 14:29 · Score: 4, Insightful

First, response to your Question:
P2P is alive and kicking. Kazaa, Morpheus if its still going, WinMX, Kazaalite, blah blah blah. Its all still out there. People are still sharing files. But there are other forms of P2P. Gaming companies are now creating P2P downloads so they can alleviate bandwidth issues by pointing you to another person who has the same file, instead of their overloaded servers.
Secondly, Buhahaha state the obvious! Go Cringely Go!
"Forgetting for the moment that some of these media people are greedy pond dwellers, let's ask the important question -- how are peer-to-peer file sharing systems going to replace $100 million movies? Peer-to-peer systems can share such movies, but since there is no real peer-to-peer business model that can generate enough zeroes, such systems are unlikely to finance any epic films.
Well, right there we have a problem. People LIKE epic films, but even with the best editing and animation software, there is no way some kid with a hopped-up Mac or PC is going to make "Terminator 4." One can only guess, then, that people will continue to go to movies and eat popcorn and watch on the big screen despite how many copies of Divx there are in the world."
Thats it right there. What are they worried about if they're still selling 47 Million $ in Box Office Ticket Sales on the first 3 days of Harry Potter, or whichever movie it was that had made some tremendous ammount of cash... Why spend so much money fighting P2P when they could embrace it for completely different Ideas like gaming companies and even some slash movie websites have done.
Re:Scaling by moonbender · 2002-11-29 14:30 · Score: 2

Um. I know of one popular P2P app where what you describe is an issue: the original Gnutella. (And possibly the new Gnutella, I haven't had a look at that one yet, but chances are they worked on the issue.)

Searching time certainly never was an issue in Napster, in fact, Napster was probably the P2P app where searching was fastest. IIRC, all the file lists of the clients were transmitted to a global server (or rather a cluster thereof), which then looked up requests in its database. So you had a single point where all the organisation went together, and consequently a single point of failure.
Modern networks like Fasttrack and eDonkey distribute this task, too. Fasttrack dynamically allocates certain client computers as "supernodes", which work as local servers other clients send their file lists and search requests to (so FastTrack is basically both P2P file sharing and indexing). EDonkey, on the other hand, has a dedicated server app which a number of people have set up, and to which client computers connect. In both cases, servers redirect search queries to other servers, so you get a number of results (basically) at once, and after some time more and more. This can take a while, but still never long enough to be bothersome, really. It doesn't make the system fail, either.

--
Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
Re:Scaling by m1a1 · 2002-11-29 14:47 · Score: 1

This whole post is ridiculous. It shouldn't be modded as insightful. As anyone who has logged on to the Kazaa network recently knows (for your own sake use Kazaa Lite) it works fine. It is in no way buckling under its own weight.

Napster worked fine up until the end too. In fact, I would say P2P is healthier today than ever before. Between Kazaa, Imech, Blubster, and the various Gnutella networks, you can really find anything. Want SuSE 8.1 without the ftp install? Edonkey2000 can take you there. Want that new song or movie? Kazaa. It really is easy to get any piece of software, music, or video on P2P these days.
Re:Scaling by packeteer · 2002-11-29 15:14 · Score: 2

Morpheus pulled a quick one and moved to gnutella when they went to version 2.

Cringly says:
"people won't take tablet computers with them to the bathroom"

im not so sure about that one

--
unzip; strip; touch; finger; mount; fsck; more; yes; unmount; sleep
Re:Scaling by Anonymous Coward · 2002-11-29 16:12 · Score: 0

What they are worried about is losing out on their extremely lucrative after theatre revenue. Video tapes and DVD's make many times more money than the box office tickets. These are the things that can be easily replaced digitally.
Re:Scaling by Anonymous Coward · 2002-11-29 18:09 · Score: 0

PLEASE MOD PARENT DOWN!

5, Insightful ??!? Are moderators on crack?

Anyone who reads Slashdot cannot make such a statement seriously. Why does P2P keeps getting mentioned regularly here? Why do the music and movie industries try to fight it? Hello? Kazaa, Morpheus, WinMX anyone? This is such an obvious troll!
Re:Scaling by Anonymous Coward · 2002-11-30 07:02 · Score: 0

Well, right there we have a problem. People LIKE epic films, but even with the best editing and animation software, there is no way some kid with a hopped-up Mac or PC is going to make "Terminator 4." One can only guess, then, that people will continue to go to movies and eat popcorn and watch on the big screen despite how many copies of Divx there are in the world."

This is a very good point, and in many ways we've been seeing it happen since VHS. Vast sprawling epics like Lawrence of Arabia, or Sparticus, just aren't made anymore. The barriers for entry into film have been lowering continuously. Most movie execs will tell you that films are largely targeted for the VHS/DVD/Pay-per view/Cable markets nowadays. The movie is payed for in the theatres, but the profits are made elsewhere.

Historically you had a problem in that all the theaters nationwide usually only had about 2 to 6 screens. That meant you had to be very selective about which films were shown. Usually only the biggest budget, best films were selected. But now that we've got VHS, and more recently with the 300 movie channel cable providers. We're able to see films like Clerks, that would have never made it in those small theatres back in the 70s.

So we've been experiencing a gradual tradeoff in many respects from quality to quantity. It used to be that the very best actors, worked with the very best directors, and those films got the biggest budget. But much of that is fading out nowadays...there's just too many people making movies, and too much market segmentation.

P2P had nothing to do with this, but it does seem to be consistent with the trend that VHS and cable started.

typo by oo7tushar · 2002-11-29 14:20 · Score: 1

gives :)

(or am I really really bad at seppllnig?)

--
internet like monkeys'

Um, Napster didn't use nodes for searches. by Anonymous Coward · 2002-11-29 14:21 · Score: 3, Informative

They kept every user's file listing on a central server(s).

Re:IN SOVIET RUSSIA by szort · 2002-11-29 14:22 · Score: 1

Much better.

What the slashdotters will say?! by VirexEye · 2002-11-29 14:22 · Score: 4, Funny

Nothing new there, but as usual, the interesting part is what SlashDotters will say here afterward - P2P is just a technology and P2P networks shouldn't be shut down - The RIAA sucks - I will say I will pay for music when the price is fair and I can do whatever I want with it - What about OGG vorbis? - My underpants smell as they have not been changed in 2 weeks

Re:What the slashdotters will say?! by Anonymous Coward · 2002-11-29 14:47 · Score: 5, Funny

My underpants smell as they have not been changed in 2 weeks
Thats not much up time, maybe you should consider GNU/Underpants or BSD/Boxers for stability and longevity.
Re:What the slashdotters will say?! by stinky+wizzleteats · 2002-11-29 17:25 · Score: 1

My underpants smell as they have not been changed in 2 weeks

You got modded up (fairly - it was funny) for saying that.

Somewhere, millions of trolls cried out in anger, and were suddenly silenced.
Re:What the slashdotters will say?! by nakaduct · 2002-11-29 17:45 · Score: 5, Funny

My underpants smell as they have not been changed in 2 weeks

Thats not much up time, maybe you should consider GNU/Underpants or BSD/Boxers for stability and longevity.

I don't think uptime is the problem. He was complaining about the load average.
Re:What the slashdotters will say?! by VB · 2002-11-30 06:00 · Score: 2

...load average.

Probably due to not rotating his logs...

--
www.dedserius.com
VB != VisualBasic

interesting, but ... by ender's_shadow · 2002-11-29 14:22 · Score: 4, Insightful

"And text, well, text is even worse because it is easiest of all to steal. " The problem w/ this is that p2p networks aren't being used to trade text. they're being used to trade movies and music. so, while p2p may have the power to kill text publishing (given his parasite assumption, which is the most interesting and insightful part of the article), it doesn't have the interest.

Re:interesting, but ... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-11-29 14:23 · Score: 0

There's a growing PDF trade on the P2P networks.
Re:interesting, but ... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-11-29 14:33 · Score: 0

Oh, LOTS of text is flying around out there. It's just not as "hip" as the audiovideo stuff, and is easier to miss.

Heck I found a site in RUssia the other day with most of the O'Reilly safari titles.
Re:interesting, but ... by BMIComp · 2002-11-29 14:34 · Score: 2

He's not speaking in the context of P2P when he mentions print piracy.

And text, well, text is even worse because it is easiest of all to steal. My columns are published in newspapers and websites and handed-in as college essays all over the world and there is almost nothing I can do about it because tracking down the perps costs me more than does their crime. From the perspective of the established publishers, there is also the horrible possibility that people might actually come to prefer material they find for free on the Internet -- not just pirated material but even original material. This column, after all, is free, and my Mother claims to find some value in it from time to time.
Re:interesting, but ... by helix400 · 2002-11-29 14:50 · Score: 2

Well, I would be one to steal text over p2p.
I often spend my Saturdays out in the wilderness, crouched up against a tree, reading a wonderful novel on my battery powered laptop using wordpad. Ahh yes, it is so practical... Quotes like this guy's make me wish we could somehow mod down news articles. (-1, Lost Track of Reality).
Re:interesting, but ... by m1a1 · 2002-11-29 14:51 · Score: 1

while p2p may have the power to kill text publishing (given his parasite assumption, which is the most interesting and insightful part of the article), it doesn't have the interest.

I have downloaded texts on Kazaa before. It was a good read, and something that would have costs me $4. I don't feel bad about it. I will buy the full book when it is released. If Robert Jordan wants me to pay for a preview, he can fuck himself with a splinter stick.
Re:interesting, but ... by SN74S181 · 2002-11-29 15:02 · Score: 1

Hell, I saw somebody selling a compilation of O'Reilly PDFs on Cd right on eBay not long ago. Even had a link on the bid page to his wobbly little web page where he was hawking 'em like a little dickins.

I don't think it was a sustainable effort, though. The site appears to have gone away.
Re:interesting, but ... by ender's_shadow · 2002-11-29 15:42 · Score: 1

not true.

"So movies, while they may be hurt by peer-to-peer, won't be killed by it. But print publishing and music recording could be seriously hurt. Maybe this is good, maybe it is bad, but probably, it is inevitable. "

admittedly, his use of an example that strays from his p2p point is misleading, but he is talking a/b p2p.

But I'm wrong if you consider the Internet a p2p app. :^)
Re:interesting, but ... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-11-29 15:47 · Score: 0

>The problem w/ this is that p2p networks aren't being used to trade text.

I should probably keep quiet since publishing companys have so far only hassled people posting ebooks to usenet and if any journalists write articles about the 10000 ebooks available on one of the p2p networks they may start to take notice...
Re:interesting, but ... by Evil+Adrian · 2002-11-29 15:52 · Score: 1

Know what? It's not your right to say the preview should be free. It's Robert Jordan's. Because it's his fucking copyright. You make me sick.

--
evil adrian
Re:interesting, but ... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-11-29 16:45 · Score: 1, Funny

If only there were a means of copying digital text files into glyphs on paper. I think I'll have to patent this, once I get it figured out!
Re:interesting, but ... by elvum · 2002-11-29 19:27 · Score: 2

I have friends who read books (from Project Gutenberg) on their Palms while commuting. It's certainly not as silly an idea as you make out.

Anyway, there are many reasons why mainstream p2p book sharing hasn't caught on in a big way yet: the fact that not everyone owns a Palm yet, the fact that they're still a poor interface for novel reading compared to a book (as you point out), the fact that the existing distribution format (books again) is much harder to "rip" than CDs are, for example... I wouldn't like to rule it out in the future though. In fact, I'd go further and say that I'd be surprised if p2p book sharing *didn't* become a problem for the publishing industry.
Re:interesting, but ... by who+what+why · 2002-11-30 06:20 · Score: 1

I have an eBookman from Franklin (unfortunately discontinued after losing them $$$) and I do read books on it all the time! I also share a lot of my books on P2P networks and see an awful lot of upload activity.
I have a sneaky suspicion that e-books didn't take off mainly because no-one realized how convenient and affordable the devices could be. I can carry 30+ books on a device the size of a large wallet, read it with one hand on the subway and yes, I've even taken it on walks into the countryside and sat in the middle of nowhere reading some great books. The backlight means you can even take in a few pages at bedtime, sleeping out under the stars.
Not only is all this possible, it's easy, it cost me less than $50 and in my opinion it's better than carrying around pocket novels, let alone giant works like Finegan's Wake! Just because you think it's silly, or that internet == (PC with 14" LCD and 20GB HD), doesn't mean there's not people out there interested. And I've been surprised by the amount of books downloaded from my P2P server.
Re:interesting, but ... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-11-30 10:44 · Score: 0

Know what? It's not your right to say the preview should be free.

You are incorrect. He has every right to say such a thing. That's about as basic an application of freedom of speech as you're going to get.

It's Robert Jordan's. Because it's his fucking copyright. You make me sick.

That just means Robert Jordan gets to sue for breach of copyright, if he so wishes.

It can be slowed down... by metatruk · 2002-11-29 14:22 · Score: 2

to the point where nobody will want to mess with it. ISPs can filter and throttle traffic. College campuses are already doing this. I wouldn't be surprised to see large scale ISPs doing this as well. If not because "bandwidth is expensive" but due to the fact that the "common carrier" ground that ISPs are standing on is becoming less sound.

Re:It can be slowed down... by jon787 · 2002-11-29 14:40 · Score: 2

And when people just re-configure P2P apps to run on port 80?

--
X(7): A program for managing terminal windows. See also screen(1).
Re:It can be slowed down... by metatruk · 2002-11-29 14:42 · Score: 2, Interesting

A lot of current ISPs filter port 80 incoming. It wouldn't matter. If everyone has port 80 filtered, then none of the p2p programs would be able to connect to each other.
Re:It can be slowed down... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-11-29 15:03 · Score: 0

That's not true. Having port 80 blocked doesn't prevent other users from connecting to me. Gnutella web caches can (and do) run on ports other than 80.
Re:It can be slowed down... by SwedishChef · 2002-11-29 15:04 · Score: 4, Insightful

In order to have P2P there has to be at least one person serving the data... it doesn't matter what port it's on if all the packets outbound are capped at 56k then P2P will collapse. And as far as port 80 goes, simply denying every packet inbound to port 80 (or 25 or 22 or 23 or whatever) except those addressed to previously approved static IP addresses would make connecting to a "server" damn difficult.

The advent of P2P may prove to be even more damaging to those of us who simply run our own mail servers or ssh in from work to check on data on our home computers. It could provide the impetus for ISPs to just deny any and all connections except "established" connections. Or, worse yet, go NAT.

In fact, lots of ISPs would love to implement NAT just to avoid the hefty costs involved in having a stable of real IP addresses for their users. Implementing NAT would be an easy way to give all users a static IP (cross-checked against MAC address) and just turn down the bandwidth of those users who overuse what they pay for.

So, if that happens you can add some gamers to the victims of P2P. Of course, since most P2P players are also gamers they'd just end up cutting their own throats. I can hear the whining on /. now.

--
No one ever had to evacuate a city because the solar panels broke!
Re:It can be slowed down... by LostCluster · 2002-11-29 15:12 · Score: 2

But you can never filter port 80 outbound, and you can never filter high ports in return. Use the HTTP ports backwards, and you can't close those ports without blocking web browsers.

AIMster was shut down by lawsuit, but nothing prevents another service piggy-backing a ride on AIM, or any other software that allows file sharing.

One of the most popular file sharing services at some colleges is simply the Windows Network Neighborhood. Some people are even sharing their whole hard drive without knowing it!

Fact is, whenever you have the ability to transmit files, you have the ability to transmit illegal files. IP is a P2P protocol by its nature. There's no way you can block illegal sharing without seriously reworking the 'net.
Re:It can be slowed down... by jsse · 2002-11-29 15:23 · Score: 2

Unless they could block all the ports, one can always find way out.

I'm tunnelling thru the corporate firewall at time of browsing and posting, thru port 443, via their proxy 8088. :)
Re:It can be slowed down... by miketang16 · 2002-11-29 15:53 · Score: 1

Despite tuition, college student's are not generally paying directly for specific internet connectivity. It's provided. If ISP's were to institute this idea, I only have one word for them. Backlash.

--
-------
"In times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
-- George Orwell
Re:It can be slowed down... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-11-29 16:10 · Score: 0

One of the most popular file sharing services at some colleges is simply the Windows Network Neighborhood. Some people are even sharing their whole hard drive without knowing it!
Windows 2000 shares all hard drives by default (as C$, D$, etc.). You need the admin password to access them - but most people don't know their hard drives will be shared when choosing that password.
Re:It can be slowed down... by gimpboy · 2002-11-29 16:14 · Score: 2, Informative

In order to have P2P there has to be at least one person serving the data... it doesn't matter what port it's on if all the packets outbound are capped at 56k then P2P will collapse.

if the isp capped my outbound traffic, then they wouldnt be fulfilling my terms of service for dsl.

In fact, lots of ISPs would love to implement NAT just to avoid the hefty costs involved in having a stable of real IP addresses for their users. Implementing NAT would be an easy way to give all users a static IP (cross-checked against MAC address) and just turn down the bandwidth of those users who overuse what they pay for.

well they can cap my upload speed at 128kb, since that is what i'm paying for. if i'm using 128kb up and they turn it down, i will just cancel and move over to stargate. they do this enough and they will loose alot of money. plus they will open them selves up to a class action suit since they were contracted to provide A and failed to provide A.

this isnt whining. i'm simply paying for a service. if the choose not to provide it, i will move on to someone else.

--
-- john
Re:It can be slowed down... by miu · 2002-11-29 16:54 · Score: 1

well they can cap my upload speed at 128kb, since that is what i'm paying for. if i'm using 128kb up and they turn it down, i will just cancel and move over to stargate. they do this enough and they will loose alot of money. plus they will open them selves up to a class action suit since they were contracted to provide A and failed to provide A.
When some large regional buys the isp that provides services you want to purchase where will you go? Did you notice all the DSL providers who were not former Bells going under? Did you hear the wailing and gnashing of teeth as cable company buyouts removed services people were using?
this isnt whining. i'm simply paying for a service. if the choose not to provide it, i will move on to someone else.
Sure, market forces will save us. I don't want to be rude, but consolidation will remove the choices provided by an immature market. The choice will be between "take it" or "leave it".

--

[Set Cain on fire and steal his lute.]
Re:It can be slowed down... by gimpboy · 2002-11-29 17:29 · Score: 2, Interesting

When some large regional buys the isp that provides services you want to purchase where will you go? Did you notice all the DSL providers who were not former Bells going under? Did you hear the wailing and gnashing of teeth as cable company buyouts removed services people were using?

thats fine. if the best i can get is 56k, then why have dsl? why not cut the $60 extra a month and use a modem? i mean really, do you expect people to keep paying for dsl when they are not really _getting_ it-it being the advantage of faster transfer rates.

i dont think any of the dsl providers can afford to piss off a large number of their clients. not even the big ones. if the big ones piss off enough people, then smaller providers will spring into being-market forces and all.

maby i'll go back to isdn :).

--
-- john
Re:It can be slowed down... by miu · 2002-11-29 19:21 · Score: 1

thats fine. if the best i can get is 56k, then why have dsl? why not cut the $60 extra a month and use a modem? i mean really, do you expect people to keep paying for dsl when they are not really _getting_ it-it being the advantage of faster transfer rates.
I expect to see the standard deal being something like "phone + 768kbps dl + 128 kbps ul + 5 gB/month" for $80. The exact deal will be different, but I expect it will be the only reasonably priced option.
maby i'll go back to isdn :).
There may be some modern equivalent of isdn for those willing to pay for sync rates, static ip, bulk transfers, unfiltered access, but it will be out of the reach of Jimmy and Jeannie Filesharer.
I don't think betamax^Wisdn^Wdsl will be around much longer :). I have had isdn and dsl and the LECs have killed both with unreasonable pricing and slow rollout.

--

[Set Cain on fire and steal his lute.]
Re:It can be slowed down... by djsloan · 2002-11-29 19:24 · Score: 1

Even more interesting than doing something so painful as slowing down all ports:
The Packetshaper
Basically, this technology allows you to cap or switch off traffic categorised by packet signatures. We've just implemented two of them at the university I work at, and the moment our network engineer enabled it, you could search on kazaa, but downloads would simply fail to connect. Other P2P services were equally sucessfully blocked.
Of course, there are plenty of HTTP tunnels out there which provide an effective means of bypassing such a system...it will be interesting to see if the P2P networks themselves start to look at encryption layers and such technologies to bypass devices like this one.
Re:It can be slowed down... by nemesisj · 2002-11-29 19:45 · Score: 2

Most universities that limit P2P do so with packet based filtering, which totally screws you based on the signature of the applications packets. I've heard they can tell which applications are which even over SSL, but I'm not 100% sure on that one. Regardless, this means that port swapping is totally innefective, as they'll just ban the whole application off the network.

--

$45 per U Colocation Special
Re:It can be slowed down... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-11-29 20:38 · Score: 0

I'm followinf discussion concerning the wireless network protocls wich I think in time will give us a Internet without providers.
This is certainly feasible and then you can't control what the people say/give to each other.
I think just for reason of freedom this should be the case.
The opposite is like trying to control what people say to each other. Wait isn't that called..
Re:It can be slowed down... by jon787 · 2002-11-30 06:49 · Score: 2

Yep its great fun browsing that using Samba.
The Windows Network and FTP servers running inside our college network are the best sources for stuff.

--
X(7): A program for managing terminal windows. See also screen(1).
Re:It can be slowed down... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-11-30 07:40 · Score: 0

If you think a lot of non-gamers use broadband, you are wrong. That's the main application. You think there are a lot of people paying $50 a month just to read NYTimes.com?
Re:It can be slowed down... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-11-30 10:50 · Score: 0

to the point where nobody will want to mess with it. ISPs can filter and throttle traffic.

They can (and do) do this to some degree, but since p2p is their main selling point ultimately it's self-destructive. Ultimately if the bandwidth used by p2p is excessive then they need to charge more for it, or else roll over and get out of the isp business.

Even in a place like slashdot it's hard to believe there can be many people willing to pay for broadband just for the sheer excitement of seeing web pages download faster.

I agree. by Freston+Youseff · 2002-11-29 14:22 · Score: 1

Cringley hits the nail on the head. It's so easy to get any pop-media that you want through P2P that it's not even funny. The entertaniment industry needs to invest in other methods of making profit, the current one may be going the way of the dinosaur.

--

Re:I agree. by Anonymous Coward · 2002-11-29 16:48 · Score: 0

Or maybe they'll just stop making things altogether, and the talentless teenage hordes on Slashdot can entertain themselves for a change.

Comment removed by account_deleted · 2002-11-29 14:23 · Score: 4, Informative

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Why the RIAA's P2P vendetta is crazy by NewtonsLaw · 2002-11-29 14:23 · Score: 5, Interesting

Check out this Aardvark Daily column which shows another commentators view of just how silly the RIAA are for going after P2P network operators when, simply by adding a cheap card to your PC, you can get all the RIAA-sanctioned free top-20 music you want (at the equivalent of 200Kbps or better).

How long before they realize that they're just bitching about cracks in the windows while the door has been left wide open??

(yeah, I submitted this a few days ago and it was rejected -- but I'm not bitching ;-)

Re:Why the RIAA's P2P vendetta is crazy by nougatmachine · 2002-11-29 14:45 · Score: 2

Well...there is a signifigant difference between me using KaZaA to sample the latest Aimee Mann cd, and some kid with a radio tuner sampling the latest carbon-copy studio swill. Specifically, with the radio route, you are still letting someone else control what you are exposed to, which is why this isn't nearly as good of an option for people who - I hope this doesn't shock anybody - actually don't like RIAA-sanctioned top 20-music ; )
Re:Why the RIAA's P2P vendetta is crazy by DarkZero · 2002-11-29 14:47 · Score: 2

Capturing a music vid or FM broadcast is now an extremely trivial job and the quality of the recording that results is every bit as good as those 128Kbps MP3 files that are so freely traded on P2P networks.

Unless they mean 128Kbps MP3 files encoded by a retarded chimp on a 386 while smoking crack, I'd like to know where they got this futuristic alien space radio that sounds as good as a 128Kbps MP3. Where I come from (I affectionately call it "Planet Earth"), FM radio does not sound that good. It doesn't even sound as good as those internet radio streams that are at like 30-somethingKbps.
Re:Why the RIAA's P2P vendetta is crazy by LostCluster · 2002-11-29 15:01 · Score: 2

Digital audio delivery is piggy-backing it's way into your home through a box sitting around most of your TV... DirecTV, Dish Network, and almost all digital cable systems have about 40 128kbps-quality audio streams coming in... streaming Internet Radio, you've been replaced.

The big difference? Music is always cheaper when somebody else is picking what track comes next. These digital music services aren't even allowed to release their playlists in advance... you will always have to pay for the right to hear the song you want to hear on your demand. In fact, newer versions of all of these services try to sell you CDs at higher prices than in the store.
Re:Why the RIAA's P2P vendetta is crazy by Anonymous Coward · 2002-11-29 18:00 · Score: 0

Is "where you come from" perhaps a valley, far from civizalation?
FM radio doesn't sounds that bad. Are you sure your radio isn't set to AM?
Re:Why the RIAA's P2P vendetta is crazy by Anonymous Coward · 2002-11-29 18:43 · Score: 0

128 kbps MP3's sound like shit. You would have to be a retarded chimp with a significant habit to think radio or 128 kbps mp3's were acceptable.
Re:Why the RIAA's P2P vendetta is crazy by Anonymous Coward · 2002-11-29 20:48 · Score: 0

Cringley killed his kid!

He admitted it died right in his arms. He is also an obsessive-compulsive egomaniac who lives under a false identity. Not to mention, his failed-techie-cum-author stylings remind me a lot of Philip Greenspun!
Re:Why the RIAA's P2P vendetta is crazy by mindstrm · 2002-11-30 01:20 · Score: 1

Really? Could have fooled me. Most "radio" sucks becaues of the receiver, not the transmitted signal. FM Radio sounds *better* than 128Kbps mp3.. they degrade in completely different ways.

Unless you are one of those guys who still thinks 128kbps is the mother of all music and really is "cd quality"

Re:crinegely by szort · 2002-11-29 14:24 · Score: 1

So what's the problem, and why are you here?

100 percent! by Anonymous Coward · 2002-11-29 14:24 · Score: 0

your right on the mark, I only read the top few comments for the witty sayings, little poems, and pieces of "offtopic" advice by the trolls! how many others are out there who are like this?

Out of the loop by Anonymous Coward · 2002-11-29 14:25 · Score: 4, Informative

Man are you ever out of it.

Kazza has about 3 million users on anytime of the day. more than the total napster users at it's peak. Way more.

Plus Winmx, Grokster, soulseek and about 20 others. And all of em have linux or Mac clients!

P2P will be impossible to stop in any real way sort of bandwith capping.

Re:Out of the loop by SN74S181 · 2002-11-29 14:56 · Score: 2, Insightful

Per-byte metered bandwidth would do a lot to stop P2P.

Who's gonna want to pay for someone else uploading over their wire?
Re:Out of the loop by pytheron · 2002-11-29 15:07 · Score: 1

It would do nothing except force out of business those who implemented it. Imagine someone running a DoS against your box. Would you be happy coughing up for the charges the traffic would generate ? It's an unworkable proposition.

--
"I am not bound to please thee with my answers" [William Shakespeare]
Re:Out of the loop by SN74S181 · 2002-11-29 15:20 · Score: 2

I'm thinking of the future: IPV6, authenticated packets. Routers that drop packets with forged headers, all that good stuff.

The whole it's too cheap to meter arguement falls apart when it becomes cheaper and cheaper to meter. Especially when there are new market players coming on the scene that will like it just fine to vend their wares over metered bandwidth. Those online pay-per-view outfits that loom in the future, for instance.
Re:Out of the loop by len_harms · 2002-11-29 16:50 · Score: 5, Interesting

Routers that drop packets with forged headers

This could happen tommorow. Most routers let you configure it to do this. Show me a forged header Ill show you a lazy admin.

ISP's could use this as a service to their customers. Find a forged header log where it came from (mac address, phone, etc...) Then help the user fix their computer. Today we have a very lazy group that see it as a non expense to them. But it does cost them bandwidth and time.

The ISPs have to balance per byte metered versus how they lure people into their network. Why would I pay more for brodband if your just going to turn around and charge me a lot more for it. That is exactly how it will be seen. Currently they are enticing people into the network with 'unlimited', or nearly that, usage. They almost say you can get fast mp3's with a wink and a nod. With phrases like 'I can get my music faster'. Yet technicaly most of these ISP's have the 'no servers' in the contract. Those p2p systems are servers. The only way I can see metered will work is if most of the time my bill would be lower than a flat rate.

There will be more pay per play type systems. There are some rudementary ones right now. But all it takes is one cheap dude to make something that can copy the data. Then poof that movie that costed 5 bucks to rent, now costs very little for Joe Smoe to copy. Pay-per-play is doomed from the outset because if you can display it I can copy it, or at least make a decent copy. The only way they can keep total control is to not distribute it, or not make a display program. Either of which make them no money.

The artical didnt point it out. It sort of danced around it. But the current system is setup by control of media. When you buy a CD its probably 3 cents worth of plastic. But it cost 20 bucks. That is in economic terms called scarcity. Not everyone can make a batch of 100,000 3 cent CDs. But the media producers can, they make enough so marginal revenue equals marginal cost. If the artist and the end user get screwed so be it, MR = MC. They end up with a tidy sum of money. The new p2p systems lower dramaticly cost. Cost is now very close to 0.

There is no shipping, pressing, marketing, etc. Suddely its just product and end user. You do not have to ship things. You do not have to have a batch run of CDs made. You do not have to have artwork made up for the cover. You do not have to pay the middle man distributor. There are new costs. But most of them you do not control, and cost you nothing.

The real change here is not the distribution method. That could have been controled up front and they still could have held onto some sort of percived scarcity. Instead someone else did it. Suddenly the scarcity is not there. If two products are fairly equal a normal person will purchase the one that cost less. They were making tons of money on scarcity. They know it. They are going ape over trying to keep it.

If someone figures out how to compress a 2 hour movie into something like 20 meg, and good quality. The movie companies will have something to worry about. But at current data rates a 700 meg file is just not practical. Its can be done. But most users will not do it. There will be some exceptions but currently not many. If the size comes down or the data rate goes up dramaticly it will become practical. Then the movie companies have something to really worry about.

Currently the only squaking your seeing is coming from the ISP's. You see silly names like 'bandwidth hogs'. But hell they SELL the service that way. A few people take them up on the offer! They are yelling uncle not because people are breaking the law. They yell it because they are seeing their bandwith bills skyrocket. They are currently trying to find the right balance of oversubscription, bandwidth needed, and pay rates. Bandwidth capping is just an kneejerk reaction to the fact they oversubscribed to much. The same sort of thing happened when phone ISP's started showing up.
Re:Out of the loop by xmedar · 2002-11-29 16:55 · Score: 1

Prices on a full Gig-E commit currently work out at around 20c-50c / GB i.e. ~300 3 minute MP3s or 1 MPEG4 movie, still far cheaper than buying CDs and DVDs, plus if you know anything about the history of the Net you'll know that metering has always been a barrier to take up of use, unmetered access has always attracted more customers, so unless your access provider wants to commit suicide or is monopoly you should have little to worry about.

--
Any sufficiently advanced man is indistinguishable from God
Re:Out of the loop by Anonymous Coward · 2002-11-29 17:04 · Score: 0

> Routers that drop packets with forged headers
This could happen tommorow. Most routers let you configure it to do this. Show me a forged header Ill show you a lazy admin.
I am so tired of hearing this.
Try saying with me:
This solution will not scale
This solution will not scale
This solution will not scale

Multiply connected networks. Tunneling. Proxies. NAT to NAT.
This will not be viable until IPv6 has heavy deployment outside the wireless world.
Re:Out of the loop by Empty+Threats · 2002-11-29 18:30 · Score: 2, Insightful

My ISP *is* a monopoly. There are only two ISP's in the market. One cable, one DSL. The two rarely overlap in market area.

I imagine this is true for much of the United States.
Re:Out of the loop by Mad+Bad+Rabbit · 2002-11-30 03:27 · Score: 2

Per-byte metered bandwidth would do a lot to stop P2P.
Who's gonna want to pay for someone else uploading over their wire?

Or (even more unhappy) unmetered downloads and expensive uploads.

Not only would that stop P2P, it'd stop you from hosting your own content
(which is just as much of a threat to the media companies as piracy).

--
>;k
Re:Out of the loop by BandwidthHog · 2002-11-30 06:49 · Score: 3, Funny

You see silly names like 'bandwidth hogs'.
Ahem.

--

Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
Re:Out of the loop by xmedar · 2002-11-30 17:44 · Score: 1

Well why not put together a business plan for Wi-Fi in your area then?

--
Any sufficiently advanced man is indistinguishable from God
Re:Out of the loop by len_harms · 2002-12-01 13:05 · Score: 1

hehe clever!
Re:Out of the loop by len_harms · 2002-12-01 13:34 · Score: 1

repeat after me it scales JUST FINE. It is up to the provider of the network to make it work. A VPN is not in the providers network. Most VPN is run through ip over X net. Which is DATA not header. IP forging to setup a VPN is a crummy way to do it, and sets you up for being cracked/spoofed nicely. Also a router does JUST that route stuff. It KNOWS what networks it belongs to... For most ISP where this data is originating this would work just fine.

Lets take a look at why forged is bad. It has ONLY to do with source. If source is wrong drop it. If a router does not know who should be SENDING not reciveing what is that router doing? Every network belongs to a subnet. Not in that on source DROP it log it...

Think what would happen on the net if most major isp's tommorow set this up on all of their fringe routers. Ie the ones that control initial dial in and routing on Cable and DSL. That alone would clip MOST of it. Schools could do it on their outgoing pipes. And so on... Overnight you could eliminate some of the most silly script kiddie junk. Then we can get to work on fixing trojans and such. Because then you have a fair idea its in the right network. Doing nothing is worse than 'does not scale'.

Im sorry IPv6 will ONLY be viable once we are OUT of ip's. Till then it will be hack after hack to make IPv4 work. Also it will continue to exist for a LONG time. IPv6 is cool no doubt. But its just that, cool. There currently is NO reason to rush towards it. But it is cool...

Well.. by D-Cypell · 2002-11-29 14:25 · Score: 3, Funny

"Nothing new here, but as usual, the interesting part is what SlashDotters will say here afterward."

Ok just a general chat then?

Well he's a story that has all the enthusiasm of a valium addict

pretty empty article by GoatPigSheep · 2002-11-29 14:25 · Score: 3, Insightful

I didn't learn anything new from this, but I might as well write my comments on the issue, since you guys enjoy comments so much.

Personally I find movie piracy to be good for the movie industry. I can search kazaa for divx's of movies, and if I like them, I go out and buy the DVD. There are no divx's that even come close to the quality of a dvd, and I cannot play divx's on my dvd player (I would rather watch movies on my 50 inch hdtv than my 17 inch flat pannel display!).

Divx's are also good because if I see a 'bootleg' home-camara recorded version of a movie that is still in theatres, I can get an idea of wether it is good or not simply by judging audience reation. For instance for the latest star wars movie, you could see alot of people getting pissed off and leaving the theatre because the movie was crap. If you didn't know this, you might have gone to see that terrible excuse for a movie.

--
GoatPigSheep, the 3 most important food groups

Re:pretty empty article by Anonymous Coward · 2002-11-29 14:40 · Score: 0

I think I am lost, in what part of your comment do you reveal why movie piracy is a good thing?

Don't you think that "The Industry" would rather you pay your 9, 7.5, or 5 dollars to see a move that is crap, than not to see it at all?

If you want to legally avoid buying DVD's you don't like, rent them, go to Video King, or Blockbuster. Personally I don't buy many DVD's only good ones. I have my Obligitory Copy of TheMatrix, I have Fight Club, and I just got Boondock Saints, and I am happy. (Oh and the Simpson 1st and 2nd seasons :))
Re:pretty empty article by Russellkhan · 2002-11-29 14:52 · Score: 2

"Divx's are also good because if I see a 'bootleg' home-camara recorded version of a movie that is still in theatres, I can get an idea of wether it is good or not simply by judging audience reation. For instance for the latest star wars movie, you could see alot of people getting pissed off and leaving the theatre because the movie was crap. If you didn't know this, you might have gone to see that terrible excuse for a movie."

I somehow doubt that the folks who run the movie industry would agree that this is good for the movie industry. In fact, they would even be correct in saying that pirating is losing them sales if they were to use this as an example. I highly doubt that they would ever use such an honest example, or that it would help to promote their cause, but that's a whole 'nother story.

--
Information doesn't want to be anthropomorphized anymore.
Re:pretty empty article by CashCarSTAR · 2002-11-29 14:53 · Score: 2, Interesting

Like it or not, renting a movie is not exactly a white-hat activity. Just because you are paying *SOMEBODY* for media does not make it legal. I believe that with the exception of Blockbuster which makes license agreements with the studios, most movie rentals are no differert than the above poster's actions. Both are limited time agreements to preview media. Both may be protected under fair use (or maybe not, depending on who you ask).

It's only a matter of time before the MPAA starts cracking down on non-Blockbuster video rental stores. It's all under the same murky laws, unfortunately.

Just to explain everything, I believe that both these activities are not ultimately economicly damaging and should be judged as such. The survival of parasitic entities such as your local vid store doesn't play into my mind. They don't have a right to survive (although I DO hope they do).
Re:pretty empty article by timeOday · 2002-11-29 16:03 · Score: 5, Insightful

I think this is a big issue in the whole matter. Giving up control. Companies try so hard to present everything with that shiny, deceptive sheen, and the actual product so rarely lives up to that.
I remember walking home to my dorm room with a shrinkwrapped Visual C++ 4.2 educational edition. "Only" $80. I suspected somebody would see it in my bag and be envious or impressed. What a chump I was. A nerdy chump. Somehow, apt-getting that latest gcc revision doesn't give me that buzz. But neither would shelling out for the hologram, anymore.
Just like when I was 14 and realized there wasn't really a 24x7 party going on down at radio station.
I really hope I can teach my kids to see through all the crap at an early age, but it's not easy. Last night my wife asked my 4 year old what his favorite movie his. He said it was the new Little Mermaid movie - which he has NEVER SEEN. It could only have come from seeing commercials on the Disney Channel.
Re:pretty empty article by autopr0n · 2002-11-29 16:42 · Score: 2

I can search kazaa for divx's of movies, and if I like them, I go out and buy the DVD.

Yeah, but will you still do that when you can download them to .vob files and burn them to DVD-ROMs?

--
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
Re:pretty empty article by IHateEverybody · 2002-11-29 17:47 · Score: 2

I can search kazaa for divx's of movies, and if I like them, I go out and buy the DVD.

Yeah, but will you still do that when you can download them to .vob files and burn them to DVD-ROMs?

But by the time this is possible, DVDs will be passe and they'll have some other storage medium that will enable the movie studios to bloat up movies so that they will once again take hours to download.

--
Does this .sig make my butt look big?
Re:pretty empty article by Anonymous Coward · 2002-11-29 17:53 · Score: 0

Divx's are also good because if I see a 'bootleg' home-camara recorded version of a movie that is still in theatres, I can get an idea of wether it is good or not simply by judging audience reation.
Ah yes, much better to watch the audience to slavishly follow others' opinions that to just watch the move and form your own.
Re:pretty empty article by Dunkalis · 2002-11-29 19:39 · Score: 1

I don't have the bandwidth to download movies, but I can download music. I just bought a CD, after getting a CD with most of the mp3s from a friend. I like having the case (even though it doesn't have liner notes), and I now have the high-quality audio on the CD. Well worth it. Well worth it.

I also prefer watching movies on a widescreen 50" TV with a great soundsystem. Why download a low quality movie when the difference between DVD and DivX are incredible?

--
Slashdot is a waste of time. I enjoy wasting time.
Re:pretty empty article by Anonymous Coward · 2002-11-29 19:53 · Score: 0

Naw, First Sale Doctrine still trumps that. Studios lost that war a long, long time ago.
Re:pretty empty article by Robotech_Master · 2002-11-29 20:08 · Score: 2

Actually, at least before DVDs came out, movie rental made studios a lot of money--because before VHSes came out priced for sale, they came out priced for rental, at $100 or so a pop...priced so high because they knew rental chains would buy them by the thousands. Thus, right at the start of the video release period, they made made at least a few hundred grand right up front.

Though with DVDs, they seem to have fallen out of that practice by and large...at least in the USA. They tried to shove it through in Australia with a software licensing issue, but the Australian courts put a stop to that.

--
Editor Emeritus and Senior Writer, TeleRead.org
Re:pretty empty article by jweatherley · 2002-11-29 23:27 · Score: 2

>>Yeah, but will you still do that when you can download them to .vob files and burn them to DVD-ROMs?

>But by the time this is possible, DVDs will be passe

Er, the technology is already here! I can download a DivX overnight then convert the DivX to MPEG2 + AC3 and mux those into VOBs to burn on my DVD-R. Played through a TV the results are usually very acceptable.

Now, even on a relatively quick computer this all takes time. One night to download, a good few hours to scale/border/change frame rate/convert to MPEG2. Since DVDs are pretty reasonably priced I'll just go and buy the damned disc, get all the extras and save myself some effort. Where it is worth the effort is where the source isn't available on DVD - old TV programs (Dr Who!), stuff not released in Europe etc.

--

--
Reverse outsourcing: it's the future
Re:pretty empty article by CashCarSTAR · 2002-11-30 00:20 · Score: 1

Actually it hasn't really, the movie studios still try to push DVD rental licenses. They don't have much success these days however...

Anyway, the post was more directed to a sort of double-think that I hate. Some people think that somehow paying money legitimizes an artistic transaction. WTF does that mean? With how easy it is these days to get media, (mind you I'm not even talking about P2P and the Internet) the reason I purchase media I enjoy is to encourage the producers to create more. It's that simple. In most rental situations, it is doing nothing to create that encouragement. Sure, the rental place has the legal right to do it. But from a moral point of view, it's no different than downloading a copy from P2P and watching it then deleting it. Both are not directly rewarding the producer.

This isn't an argument so much against rental, I like renting movies/games and I want these shops to suceed, I believe being an informed consumer trumps all other concerns. However, the whole idea , that like I said that as long as somebody is being paid it is fine and dandy...annoys me. To take a related one for example, Emulation. Go to any of the newsgroups and you will find "hardcore" people who will bitch and complain about ANY ROM, and then encourage you to go to e-bay or the like and buy a copy. Legalities aside, both, in fact are ripping off the producer. If they wanted you to buy that product it would still be for sale. They want you to buy the newer things. Mind you, I am a big purchaser of classic games, but I have no problem with downloading a rom for a few days to give it a test run to see if I like it. I will also rent it if I see it at a rental shop. I believe that being an informed consumer in reality trumps ALL other concerns.

In the end, what it comes down to is that P2P is not a legal issue, it's a social issue. Most of my non-techie friends equivicate downloading a movie with going out and renting it. They don't see how it is any different, except for one they have to leave the house. As far as music goes, it is really that the record companies are not offering the service people want. Most people I know with huge *illegal* (Meaning a large permanent database they have no intention of buying, ever) collections rarely have more than 3 songs by a specific artist. They are basically after the hits. The record industry in a nutshell is going after singles less and less. Most young people don't actually know that you can BUY a single. To curb this most damaging sharing does not require new laws. It requires the record industry to make singles easily and widely available at an affordable price..say 3.99 (I've SEEN singles priced that low so I'm assuming it is possible). Then these people would, say at the checkout line or at the 7-11 (Which a local one used to sell singles at the counter actually), might pick up the single for a song or two they currently like.

But I guess that's the whole point. For most people it is not a legal issue, but a social issue.
Re:pretty empty article by mindstrm · 2002-11-30 01:23 · Score: 1

I think you will find that most video rental outlets pay up one way or the other.. they *have* to.. they are prime targets.

Do you have some kind of evidence that says everyone but blockbuster is breaking the law?

shake me down, rattle, and roll... by simpl3x · 2002-11-29 14:26 · Score: 4, Insightful

"But the same is not true for records. This is simply because technology has reached the point where amateurs can make as good a recording as the professionals. The next Christina Aguilera CD could be as easily recorded at her house (or mine) as at some big recording complex out on Abbey Road."

it just so happens that i really like the music that tends to be made in garages, or basements, or lofts... isn't this as much about access to choices, as paying for those choices? and, don't you think that these musicians might actually like to make money on their first recordings, as opposed to "waiting" for the labels to bequest riches? not to mention that rarely does money equate with artistic vision--second albums generally blow.

Somebody has to pay, somebody has to be paid, but where does that leave the RIAA?

Re:shake me down, rattle, and roll... by tsg · 2002-11-29 15:14 · Score: 2

Somebody has to pay, somebody has to be paid, but where does that leave the RIAA?

In the same boat as blacksmiths and buggy whip makers....

--
People's desire to believe they are right is much stronger than their desire to be right.

Cringely section? by mcrbids · 2002-11-29 14:27 · Score: 5, Interesting

Why isn't there a "Cringely" icon for slashdot? It seems that every time he publishes something, it ends up here!

Come on, guys!

--
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.

Re:Cringely section? by Guppy06 · 2002-11-29 15:19 · Score: 2

"Why isn't there a "Cringely" icon for slashdot?"

For the same reason they didn't follow my suggestion a while back about an MPAA/RIAA icon: They're too damned lazy. :)
Re:Cringely section? by Anonymous Coward · 2002-11-29 15:29 · Score: 0

Could somebody please tell me what is so great about this "Cringely" guy?
Re:Cringely section? by jsse · 2002-11-29 15:36 · Score: 4, Funny

Why isn't there a "Cringely" icon for slashdot? It seems that every time he publishes something, it ends up here!

I've been bothering with this for quite some time, and came up with the following 6 reasons to explain this phenomenon:
1) He got a cool name.
2) He writes in tone matches his name - paranoiac, suspicious, and - cringely
3) His look matches his name - that cringely look - the look that can be find in Stephen King
4) /. editors like Stephen King
5) /. editors love any reference to the words 'Startrek', 'cringely' and 'Stephen King'.
6) There's no 6th reason. Move along.

(I'm aware that there's no such word 'cringely', but you got the idea....or not?)
Re:Cringely section? by jimson · 2002-11-29 15:43 · Score: 1

I don't think they need to even post when he's got a new article, I think most /.'s are on the Cringley mailing list!
Re:Cringely section? by Lonath · 2002-11-29 16:43 · Score: 3, Funny
I agree. I have two ideas for this icon:
1. A picture of a big white ass taking a shit on the Constitution. His pants are down around his ankles and the pockets contain wads of money politicians with little price tags on them.
  
  OR
2. That picture of the abacus->adding machine->computer, except backwards, since that's what these people want to do: take away computers to keep competition from hurting them.
And I'm glad that other people are starting to realize that this isn't about piracy. It's about comptetition. I have been bleating about this for a year and most people ignore me. :) But just remember: the piracy debate is a big lie to cover up the fact that it's about taking away the machines that can compete with the industries. They want to use copyright to suppress speech and freedom. That's why you need to really limit the amount of money you give them or stop giving them money altogether. This whole P2P/Napster thing isn't really about and they won't stop until they have total control and you aren't allowed to express your thoughts and share them with other people without their consent.
--
Best. Comment. Ever. Enjoy!
Re:Cringely section? by tswinzig · 2002-11-29 17:00 · Score: 1, Flamebait

Why isn't there a "Cringely" icon for slashdot? It seems that every time he publishes something, it ends up here!

Fuck that, why isn't there a "-1 Same-Old-Cringely-Complaints" moderation option for every time I read this exact same comment in a Cringely talkback?

C'mon, you're a robot, aren't you?

--

"And like that ... he's gone."
Re:Cringely section? by LostCluster · 2002-11-30 02:44 · Score: 2

Actually, it's been established that Robert X. Cringley is not his real name. There was actually a lawsuit because after he left a magazine, both he and the magazine claimed the right to continue using the name.
Re:Cringely section? by zonker · 2002-11-30 09:29 · Score: 0

good idea, and after that we can create a section devoted to people that whine about the articles that are posted.

--
Large print giveth, and the small print taketh away

Who cares by [cx] · 2002-11-29 14:30 · Score: 0, Flamebait

This is like posting something about what Katz thinks.

Re:Scaling and Google by Anonymous Coward · 2002-11-29 14:32 · Score: 0

As the number of nodes increased, searches took longer and longer until they just started timing out and failing altogether.

What is fundamentally wrong with P2P search engines? Can something like Google be employed in search for media content. AFAIK, Google engine is distributed AND scalable.

silly quotes from article.. by doowy · 2002-11-29 14:38 · Score: 4, Interesting

This is simply because technology has reached the point where amateurs can make as good a recording as the professionals.

This is not entirely true. I know two people who have small independant record labels, and let me tell you it is VERY expensive to put out albums even when the majority of work is done in-house. There are a lot of stages to making a good quality album - for example, mastering can cost thousands of dollars for a small collection of tracks. Mastering studios are in business for a reason - because the indi's cannot (for the most part) do this themselves.

We're not that far from a time when artists and writers can distribute their own work and make a living doing so, which makes the current literary and music establishments a lot less necessary.

I'd sooner compare a PC with great audio software to a typewriter of 50 years ago. And guess what.. 'literary establishments' are STILL necessary for widespread ditribution. The problem is really all in the distribution. Let's face it, if we wanted to we could affordably publish text in a comparible quality format to that of which appears in book stores today. The technology is certainly available, but it's not really replacing the big publishing/distributers at all.

Also, the article has the tone "P2P is here to stay and nobody will ever be willing to pay for a P2P file-sharing service", which I somewhat agree with.. but he does not offer support for the above quote, specifically "and make a living doing so". It seems to contradict the overall tone - how can the indi's make a living distributing their own music if people are unwilling to pay for it? Please enlighten us.

and because people won't take tablet computers with them to the bathroom.

if I had a Tablet PC, I would! :)

--
..mork

Re:silly quotes from article.. by malarkey · 2002-11-29 14:53 · Score: 1

The difference between distribution of books and of CD's is that it would cost me more to print out a book and read it than it does to buy it at the bookstore. I know I could read it off the computer but it doesn't have the same "quality" as a printed book.

CD's, on the other hand, can be copied for less than what it costs to buy one. The quality doesn't go down, you just lose out, potentially, on the printed materials that go with the CD.

Maybe when CD prices prices come down to where the cost goes up to create one yourself we won't have this P2P "problem".

Of course, there's the justification for taxing the blank media to raise the cost of copying CD's.
Re:silly quotes from article.. by Russellkhan · 2002-11-29 15:10 · Score: 2

"Also, the article has the tone "P2P is here to stay"

That part I read the same as you.

""...and nobody will ever be willing to pay for a P2P file-sharing service", which I somewhat agree with.."

I didn't get that from the article. It seemed to me he was saying that the crappy P2P that the xxAA companies will try to use to supplant working P2P models will fail be cause nobody would ever be willing to pay for those.

I also don't agree with your feeling that people wouldn't pay at all for a decent P2P model of distribution. I know she's quoted a lot in the discussions of this stuff (but that's just because her writings are so well thought out), but Janis Ian's articles (second article here) talk a bit about possible ways of handling P2P distribution while still making a profit very intelligently.

--
Information doesn't want to be anthropomorphized anymore.
Re:silly quotes from article.. by OeLeWaPpErKe · 2002-11-29 15:13 · Score: 2

I'd sooner compare a PC with great audio software to a typewriter of 50 years ago. And guess what.. 'literary establishments' are STILL necessary for widespread ditribution. The problem is really all in the distribution. Let's face it, if we wanted to we could affordably publish text in a comparible quality format to that of which appears in book stores today. The technology is certainly available, but it's not really replacing the big publishing/distributers at all.

Aren't we ?

You seem to be using the internet ... exactly what does it do ? Think about it for 20 secs.

It's all but removed the necessity for books (you can find every piece of information you need on the internet), books are now bought not because you need them, but for COMFORT factor ("I like a physical book" type argument).

I'd even go as far as saying that the internet has more choice, and often has better choices available (there is no book on php that matches www.php.net, there is no book on apache that matches it's website, there are no books on linux that match the linuxdoc site).

There are hoards of novels available (did you bother to check kazaa for this type of thing ?).
Re:silly quotes from article.. by LostCluster · 2002-11-29 15:28 · Score: 4, Insightful

The problem of physical distribution of all forms of media is effectively solved. We now live in a situation where media can hit the average home in multiple ways. What we need, is institutions to tell us what media is worth our attention, and what isn't. This is why /. is considered superior to other message boards, there's an innovative moderation system here, and even a meta-moderation system to keep the moderation system tuned right.

That's what the indie artists of all kinds need right now. A service such as MP3.com that advertises them to a following of people. The problem is, of course, that any such service usually gets bought up by "big media" and we're back in the hole we started in.
Re:silly quotes from article.. by homer_ca · 2002-11-29 16:16 · Score: 1

"I'd sooner compare a PC with great audio software to a typewriter of 50 years ago"

Oh I wouldn't say that. I'd say it's more like late 80's vintage desktop publishing with a 300dpi laser printer for output. What you're talking about is the spit and polish of mixing a release quality album, which is like saying the typesetting isn't as clean and professional as it could be. It's irrelevant to the quality of the author's writing.
Re:silly quotes from article.. by Anonymous Coward · 2002-11-29 16:58 · Score: 0

Regressive taxation to discourage piracy, or more realistically subsidize the recording industry for all of eternity, are unpleasant options.

I'd rather they just spent a lot of time and money making their secure formats, suing P2P networks, or getting damages from the parents of all of the slashteens that feel they're entitled to just have things, if they don't want to pay $16 for a CD. If they succeed or fail in reducing aggregate piracy, at least it's their problem. I burn a few data CDs a month, and I don't want to pay $.01 to subsidize the music industry, just 'cause most people use their CD media for piracy. That's just making me pay for some teenager's Britney Spears addiction.
Re:silly quotes from article.. by Anonymous Coward · 2002-11-29 16:58 · Score: 0

Its easy to get the same software (even mastering software) that the pros have. You can even get the same hardware (computers, mixers, mics, speakers). All for very affordable these days.

Granted, you dont have the ear that a pro mastering guru has but you can get it loud. And mastering has never costed thousands and thousands of dollars. Even the top guys in LA like Big Bass Brian are available for around a grand to indies.

What you can't get access to is radio play, tv or major media publications. The labels have those tied up with $. Isnt that really what makes the industry and not the music itself but the hype.
Re:silly quotes from article.. by Anonymous Coward · 2002-11-29 17:03 · Score: 0

Find me a textbook-quality resource for category theory, geometric algebra, organic chemistry, and combinatorics.

Most bookwarez comes in the form of older texts, D&D manuals, and some of the more popular modern books.
Re:silly quotes from article.. by Anonymous Coward · 2002-11-29 19:24 · Score: 0

The internet is great in that it allows anyone to publish something that be made visible to a potential million viewers. And for technical articles and articles about itself (ie linux is largely propagated by the internet) it works well.

It can also be total crapchute, where few sites are peer edited with quality (the titles, descriptions, and broad assumptions made for stories here are a GREAT example).
Some of it can be taken for granted, but for a report or anything that I would talk to another real life person with, I'd rather read a research article that's been chewed through by a half a dozen experts in a field than running around saying that the sky is falling.
I'd post with my name but I moderated a good post and I don't want to lose that :\

From Goods to Services by sgtsanity · 2002-11-29 14:39 · Score: 3, Interesting

Frankly, after P2P file sharing has run its course, I expect the entertainment industry to still be here. However, it'll be a lot different. They'll transition from Goods, which can be digitally copied and redistributed, to Services, which (as of yet) are copy-proof. Expect to see the resurrection of theater. We've already seen it happen with an emphasis on live concerts in the music industry.

The Industry will finally begin to understand that it's greatest asset it not the tangible, but the intangible.

Bad Monopolies at play by Alien54 · 2002-11-29 14:41 · Score: 4, Interesting

I like this story

My favorite historical example of this phenomenon comes from the oil business. In the 1920s, the Anglo-Persian Oil Company had a monopoly on oil production in the Middle East, which they generally protected through the use of diplomatic -- and occasionally military -- force against the local monarchies. Then the Gulf Oil Company of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, literally sneaked into Kuwait and obtained from the Al-Sabah family (who still run the place) a license to search for oil.
The Anglo-Persian Oil Company did not like Gulf's actions, but they were even more dismayed to learn that Gulf couldn't be told to just go to hell. Andrew Mellon, of the Pittsburgh Mellons, was the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, and he wasn't about to let his oil company be pushed around by the British Foreign Office. So Anglo-Persian and the Foreign Office did their best to delay Gulf, which worked for several years. They lied a little, lost a few maps, failed to read a telegram or two, and when Gulf still didn't go away, they turned to acting stupid. As the absolute regional experts on oil exploration, they offered to do Gulf's job, to save the Americans the bother if searching for oil in Kuwait by searching for them.
The Anglo-Persian Oil Company searched for oil in Kuwait for 22 years without finding a single drop.
Remember that Kuwait is smaller than Rhode Island, and not only is it sitting atop more than 60 billion barrels of oil, it has places where oil has been known for more than 3,000 years to seep all the way to the surface. Yet Anglo-Persian was able to fulfill its contract with Gulf and keep two oil rigs continually drilling in Kuwait for 22 years without finding oil. To drill this many dry wells required intense concentration on the part of the British drillers. They had to not only be NOT looking for oil, they had to very actively be NOT LOOKING for oil, which is even harder.

[emphasis added] It sounds so very familiar. Just like something the RIAA or Microsoft would do, if they were an Oil company.

Microsoft Oil. RIAA Petroleum. Really.

--
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"

Re:Bad Monopolies at play by The+Bungi · 2002-11-29 15:02 · Score: 1

I find myself constantly amazed at how people here can find a Microsoft "angle" in just about anything.
Whether it's 10th century celtic music, the real story behind Pikachu, alternative uses for body fluids, stem cell research, 1337 case mods or new-age agriculture in Tanzania, there's always someone who manages to slip in a non sequitur about the Evil Empire.
Well, that and CmdrTaco.
Re:Bad Monopolies at play by pytheron · 2002-11-29 15:12 · Score: 1

Well, microsoft find an angle in just about everything too.. I cast my mind back to a commercial about child abuse, and was amazed to see at the end of it, emblazoned in big green letters "sponsored by Microsoft" at the end. I don't believe they fooled anyone with their sudden development of social conscience.

--
"I am not bound to please thee with my answers" [William Shakespeare]
Re:Bad Monopolies at play by LostCluster · 2002-11-29 15:16 · Score: 2

I like this part better...

And text, well, text is even worse because it is easiest of all to steal. My columns are published in newspapers and websites and handed-in as college essays all over the world and there is almost nothing I can do about it because tracking down the perps costs me more than does their crime. From the perspective of the established publishers, there is also the horrible possibility that people might actually come to prefer material they find for free on the Internet -- not just pirated material but even original material. This column, after all, is free, and my Mother claims to find some value in it from time to time.

Cringely and P2P by inode_buddha · 2002-11-29 14:41 · Score: 4, Interesting

Dude hits the nail right on the head, IMHO.
Especially the part towards the end about the Grateful Dead and residual incomes vs direct publishing (now truly enabled by the 'net)

My only real question to all of this is: How does any of this differ from the social uproar caused by Johannes Gutenberg printing the Bible with his movable-type press? (Which really messed up Europe for at least a hundred years -- some publishers are still extant). Surely, the social upheavals were reflected in the massive financial swings of the time. What makes this (internet-based publishing) any different?

--
C|N>K

Re:Cringely and P2P by LostCluster · 2002-11-29 15:37 · Score: 3, Insightful

The fact that the Luddites of the world are still out there. Remember, a Luddite is not somebody who doesn't understand or doesn't want to use new technologies. It is somebody who has a vested interest in seeing that others don't use the new technology, because it threatens their way of doing things. Whenever a new technology creates a better way to do things, there's somebody who owns the old way of things who would rather that tech go back into the bottle. It rarely works, but they sure can give up quite a fight in the process of going down.
Re:Cringely and P2P by Anonymous Coward · 2002-11-29 19:29 · Score: 0

Actually, Deadheads play also trail blazers
when it comes to music distribution.

Taping and trading of live performances (which only works if the band doesnt play the same songs the same way every night) gained popularity with fans of the Dead and about 20-30 later bands like Dave Matthews Band, Blues Traveler and so on owe their success to the world of mouth approach of advertising of tape trading.

The analog cassette has just been replaced by
a new media. The anal retentives who used to look down on 4 generation copies now get all pissy about bit rates and all that.

Now giving free samples on a web site is current practice. (more so for sites like Addisson Groove Project, Karl Denson's Universe, String Cheese and Umphrey's McGee, bands that often leave complete shows for DL on their sites.

Ask bands like Phish about the battles with their labels about giving away something the labels believed would undermine their control.

W
Re:Cringely and P2P by inode_buddha · 2002-11-29 22:34 · Score: 2

Thanks for the insightful comment, I hadn't thought of looking at it like that before but I definitely agree with it. I stand educated, and your definition all of a sudden explains a lot of political crap (at least in the US)

--
C|N>K

This guy hasn't done his research.. by PFAK · 2002-11-29 14:42 · Score: 1

"...there will still be Brittany Spears and Stephen King singing and writing for big labels."

Isn't it Britney Spears..

--

Free means no restrictions, ironic the FSF's GPL forces restrictions, isn't it? What's your definition of free?

Re:This guy hasn't done his research.. by Trusty+Penfold · 2002-11-29 14:48 · Score: 0, Troll

And Stephen King is dead.
Re:This guy hasn't done his research.. by marcushnk · 2002-11-29 16:13 · Score: 0, Offtopic

is not..

What the hell makes you think he died??

--
"Consider how lucky you are that life has been good to you so far. Alternatively, if life hasn't been good to you so far
Re:This guy hasn't done his research.. by Anonymous Coward · 2002-11-29 21:11 · Score: 0

Britney is something that you watch... not something that you listen to! (tm)

Too much efficiency means less money... by dagg · 2002-11-29 14:45 · Score: 2

"... Back to music and text publishing. Expect both industries to offer peer-to-peer systems that won't work very well, and will cost us something instead of nothing."

This is a classic problem. If the music industry makes it too easy to get music... then they'll lose money. It doesn't make sense at first... but it's like being too good of a system administrator. If you do your job too well... the company won't need you anymore.

--
Very efficiently get your sex

--
Sex - Find It

Plane2Pain by zenst · 2002-11-29 14:46 · Score: 1

If he would just put aside his ego for one second he would realise what he actualy contibutes. He is a poor comedian at that. I'm still realing about his wireless claims a month ago.

Re:It can be slowed down... perhaps by Space+cowboy · 2002-11-29 14:48 · Score: 5, Insightful

At which point, you adopt a "spread-spectrum" approach to the data transmission. Chop each item up algorithmically into N blocks (so the split points can be determinable and reproducible across multiple servers), append metadata to the end of each block saying how to get the next from this, and encrypt each block with a key from the previous one. Use changing ports and servers (if it's a true P2P system) for access to each block.

The ISP filtering s/w would have to be *damn* good :-)

This doesn't cope with the blocking issue, so the "obvious" thing to do is to coerce the great unwashed into an involuntary P2P network using virus technology to steal bandwidth (disk & net).

There'd be no nasty virus payload (the authors would want the machines to be operating smoothly). The virus might even patch and protect against other virii just to keep it only infected with the P2P s/w!

If the virus can infect (ooh, say, IIS) then it could use HTTP as a transport without affecting normal behaviour.

It's coming, or something like it. It's just a matter of time before the arms race really kicks in.

Or then again, perhaps I've missed something obvious - it's very late over here in the UK :-)

Simon.

--
Physicists get Hadrons!

Rosy future taken for granted too soon by Ben+Escoto · 2002-11-29 14:50 · Score: 1

Cringely writes:

And that will only start to change when the first really big artists jumps from old media to new, trading 15 percent of $30 times 100,000 copies for 100 percent of $0.50 times 1 million copies.

and generally implies that the only obstacle to some utopian situation are entrenched reactionary forces like the RIAA and MPAA, and perhaps some convenient micropayment system.

But things are not that clear! If the cost of songs does reach the marginal cost of distribution (i.e. approx $0.0001) then why will one million people give $0.50 to an artist? Why not just download it for free? True, some people will support artists out of charity, but charity has its limits. Why give a dollar to some artist or open source programmer when you can give it to a starving/homeless person instead? Or to put it a different way, if charity is too weak to cure homelessness and hunger, where the moral issues are striking and straightforward, why do we think it is strong enough to channel an adequate amount of money into media projects?

I think it's important we take a hard look at post-P2P economics, and try to figure out how expensive high-quality projects can still be completed. Personally I like some expensive movies, like The Matrix for instance, and think it would be a shame if they are no longer possible in the future.

Re:Rosy future taken for granted too soon by jdkincad · 2002-11-29 15:18 · Score: 1

I give money to the band or programer because I want them to continue working. I by CDs (from non RIAA labels) because I want the band to release another CD.

In your charity analogy I get nothing tangible out of giving money to the homeless, but if give money to a band I like I may get some more kick-ass music.

--
The great advantage of having a reputation for being stupid: People are less suspicious of you.
Re:Rosy future taken for granted too soon by demon93 · 2002-11-29 15:21 · Score: 1

> Why give a dollar to some artist or open source
> programmer when you can give it to a
> starving/homeless person instead?

Because unless someone gives that dollar to the artist/programmer then the artist/programmer becomes one of the starving/homeless people you are suggesting we give to instead.

If the cost per track dropped to $0.50 I think it would be a viable proposition. Personally I would rather pay $0.50 directly because
1. the artist is paid for their work and can produce more work
2. I would not be stuffing the pockets of the RIAA
3. the track I download would not be incomplete/misnamed etc.
4. I would feel better buying instead of stealing/pirated (call it what you like)

--
demon
-----
Nothing is ever a total loss; it can always serve as a bad example.

I don't know about you but... by outofpaper · 2002-11-29 14:50 · Score: 1

I don't know about every one but I take my palm with me to the bathroom and if I had a tablet computer I sure as hell would take it to the bathroom. Eeesh what self respecting techy wouldn't?

Re:Fun things to do, vol. 2 by Anonymous Coward · 2002-11-29 14:51 · Score: 0

Troll Fun things to do, vol. 1 on Slashdot

Cringely is becoming Crufty by Anonymous Coward · 2002-11-29 14:51 · Score: 1, Interesting

I agree with some of the points Cringely is making, however, I disagree with him when he says that big media is being hurt by P2P. Big media companies are being hurt by themselves and their refusal to adapt to a different business model. I'd gladly pay $0.50 per mp3, maybe $1.00 per shn or wav file, and perhaps even $1.50 for an sacd or dvd-audio track from a fast, 200+ kilobyte per second connection. The problem is, big media refuses to adapt. P2P exists because there is no other means of getting most desired digital media over the Internet. P2P exists to fill a growing niche market that currently isn't being served by a legitimate outlet.

When Atom Films released Nick Park's Wallace and Gromit movies for $9.99, I gladly paid it to get high quality encoded video from a fast connection. Imagine how much money HBO is throwing away by not offering last week's Sopranos episode as a download for sale on the web. HBO could run it on cable for a week, then offer it as a $5 download the following week.

These companies need to realize that there's a market developing for video and audio-on-demand over the Internet. I'd much rather pay for quality encoded media than download it from some P2P service or have to encode it myself. When are these companies going to realize that they can't keep selling these plastic discs forever?

Re:Cringely is becoming Crufty by SN74S181 · 2002-11-29 15:13 · Score: 1

I just borrowed my friend's Wallace and Grommit VHS tapes and recorded and burned VCDs of them.

It isn't like W&G has the resolution and production quality where a VCD degrades it. But then I am one of those people who looks at the content, instead of obsessing about the quality of the medium. I.e.: there is some great music worth listening to that was recorded with only one microphone.
Re:Cringely is becoming Crufty by Do+not+eat · 2002-11-29 16:19 · Score: 1

I don't know about anybody else, but my purchasing habits have changed quite a bit as a result of having the ability to download music. I actually purchase fewer cds than I did before - not because I'm cheap, but because I now have the opportunity to listen to albums before I put my hard earned cash into them. So yes, the record industry gets less of my money from poor purchases - conversely, the bands I truly enjoy and wish to support get more money from me than they would have previously.
I like to consider my money an investment into a band I support - the more money they have to spend, the more music I get from them in the future. And just like any investment, one must have research tools on hand to ensure that your money is going to get a good return - It just so happens that in my case, its gnutella. Its not piracy - its good business. Surely the RIAA understands that.
Re:Cringely is becoming Crufty by silentbozo · 2002-11-29 16:26 · Score: 3, Insightful

I just borrowed my friend's Wallace and Grommit VHS tapes and recorded and burned VCDs of them.

It isn't like W&G has the resolution and production quality where a VCD degrades it.

Well, no, not after it's been recorded to VHS. After VHS, a well encoded VCD could be considered an improvement, especially if you started with the 24/25fps source material and didn't have to go through reverse pulldown.

poor article with poor comparisions by Anonymous Coward · 2002-11-29 14:51 · Score: 0

"Well, right there we have a problem. People LIKE epic films, but even with the best editing and animation software, there is no way some kid with a hopped-up Mac or PC is going to make "Terminator 4." " is hardly likely to happen due to copyright restrictions alone. But saying that this has happened with movies and still will. Sure southpark made more than the terminator series put together. Once again an article from a chap who's ambitions are only matched by his ego, a shortfall faster than one of his planes.

Nuh-uh! by G-funk · 2002-11-29 14:57 · Score: 1

Cringely on P2P Suuuuuure, it says "Cringely" but trust me, it's not... It's just a spiderman handy-cam that some losers have renamed. 600megs later....

Argh! Fairly warned, be ye, says I!

--
Send lawyers, guns, and money!

What can be do to help? (Destroy the oligolopoly) by sam_handelman · 2002-11-29 14:57 · Score: 1, Troll

You read to the end of this article, and you say to yourself, "What can I, as a nerd, do to help bring about the downfall (and total destruction) of the recording and publishing industries, the scum?"

1) Boycott!
You can make a stand by boycotting that which sucks, which has been systematically drained of content and depth by hateful music executives, which is to real music as hardened canola oil is to actual cheese.

2) Contribute technical expertise to p2p.
p2p could work better, it could be more secure, it could be more distributed. Defenses could be erected against DoS attacks, faked files, and so on. Get involved!

3) Rip it yourself!
Take that enormous movie collection and send it to useNET! The more people that do this, the more difficult it is to prosecute any single person. Downloading free music may not be civil disobedience, but POSTING it definitely is.

4) Vote, run for office and stuff
No, actually, scratch that. It doesn't matter, the system is rigged. Overthrowing our corrupt institutions in order to restore true democratic control might be a good idea, but see item #6.

5) Political Violence.
You may think that because you've been a stereotypical social outcast, don't play sports and have never kissed a girl, that the option of political violence is closed to you. That's what the establishment wants you (and, to be fair, everyone else) to think! Don't let "the man" control you. Channel all of that inventiveness, sexual frustration and technical knowhow into a love of mayhem. Theodore Kaczynski was a great terrorist and an outstanding nerd - you think your case mod is l33t - did you make your own SCREWS? If only half a dozen people concocted technically feasible plans to kill random record company executives through the mail, it would do wonders for our cause.

6)WORLD DOMINATION
We can establish enlightened rule by those qualified to understand the way the world really works. As masters of the human race we could end all our problems in one fell swoop. Without seizing control of the reigns of government, there's no way we can kill ALL the record company executives, who only recently gained the #1 slot (pushing long time leader, "lawyers", to #2 on the hitlist charts.)

--
The good and new comes from no quarter where it is looked for, and is always something different from what is expected.

Thank God... by dirgotronix · 2002-11-29 14:59 · Score: 0, Redundant

Thank god the RIAA shut down Napster and stopped piracy.

--
America - Home of the scapegoat, land of the Corporation

Re:Thank God... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-11-29 17:03 · Score: 0

mmm... troll- I'll bite!

Yeah. Right.

Movies aren't hypertext by yerricde · 2002-11-29 14:59 · Score: 1

Can something like Google be employed in search for media content. AFAIK, Google engine is distributed AND scalable.

Google finds content using hypertext links. Sound recordings and audiovisual works, unlike HTML documents, do not generally contain hypertext links. Besides, it's a lot easier for a provider to take down a hosted web site than a P2P node.

--
Will I retire or break 10K?

Re:Movies aren't hypertext by Anonymous Coward · 2002-11-29 16:34 · Score: 0

Sigh.

See Bitzi.com

P2P files turned into hashes, then in turn into links.

You guys should really learn what the fuck your talking about before opening your judgemental shitholes.
Re:Movies aren't hypertext by yerricde · 2002-11-29 17:10 · Score: 2, Informative

See Bitzi.com

Which is vulnerable to lawsuit.

P2P files turned into hashes, then in turn into links.

You wanted "something like Google". Sure, Bitzi links to files on Gnutella, but without hypertext links from one document to another document, there's no way to assign a PageRank(tm) value to a document.

If you have a design for a lawsuit-resistant distributed search engine that reliably maps titles of works to hashes of good quality digital encodings of those works, feel free to post a summary of your architecture here.

fuck

It's possible to express a point without obscenity.

--
Will I retire or break 10K?
Re:Movies aren't hypertext by GigsVT · 2002-11-29 20:11 · Score: 1

fuck

It's possible to express a point without obscenity.

Yeah, but obscenity makes it so much fucking easier. :)

--
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.

Not totally invalid, though by husker_man · 2002-11-29 15:02 · Score: 1

I was at WalMart today, shopping for a bike for my daughter. They had a DVD bin with all DVD's for $5 each (like "10"). They also had a ton of other DVD's for $9.44, like GhostBusters 2, etc. - videos that I would watch.

My point, the price of videos has come down due to pressure from the P2P networks, and competitive pressures from within the entertainment industry. Or, in other words, the movie houses would rather get a piece of the pie rather than lose any potential profits to pirated video. It's the same lesson learned when Charles Dickens released books to the US (higher quality) that were slightly higher in price than the bootlegged manuscripts (lower quality) hawked in the the US.

There are three things that affect how things come out: Time, Quality and Cost. You can change two variables only, and it shows up in the final leg. You want high quality in a short time, it's going to cost you. You want it low cost, but high quality? It'll take a long time. The same thing happens with P2P networks and what you get off of it.

Re:Not totally invalid, though by Anonymous Coward · 2002-11-29 16:29 · Score: 1, Insightful

My point, the price of videos has come down due to pressure from the P2P networks
With all due respect, bollocks. The price of videos has come down because the movies are stale. Or did bargain bins not exist prior to the rise of P2P networking?
~~~

Hookay. by Anonymous Coward · 2002-11-29 15:05 · Score: 0

Text publishing in danger? Not at all.

Jouralism, maybe, but not because of P2P itself - it's in danger because of the very Internet.

The World Wide Web has allowed easy access to loads of commentary on everything from CowboyNeal to CmdrTaco. Because of this, we're no longer dependant on the newspapers and Time for sometimes insightful thoughts on varying subjects.

There's a simple way to prevent journalism from disappearing - fire the idiots, and charge. People will pay for good content. They won't pay for Joe Blow who knows jack about what he's rattling off about.

As for the rest of the publishing industry, we've been hearing cries of doom for books and bookstores since the inception of the 'net. It's not going to happen. You know why?

If I lay down on my couch with a laptop to read through the Battle of the Pelennor Fields, it's all well and good. Until I fall asleep, roll over, and wake up the next morning to find out I've just crushed a $2k laptop.

In summary, journalism-type publishing may be harmed. People read newspapers and magazines on the go now, in many uncomfortable positions. Readers don't mind viewing these things on horrible monitors. Books, however, are here to stay. You can't snuggle up with a warm blanket, a cup of coffee, and a laptop.

(Well, you can, but no one in their right mind wishes to.)

record companies will never die by Bob+MacSlack · 2002-11-29 15:10 · Score: 1

Everyone focuses on the large record companies (and movie studios for that matter) when they talk about p2p piracy and how its going to kill them. What alot of people miss are the small independent labels. The people who sell music for at least somewhere remotely close to what its worth. Am i the only person who likes having that little plastic disc tucked safely in its case on a shelf? No matter how large p2p gets, or how much music gets pirated, the small companies will survive. They will survive because they dont need to make millions in profit to stay alive. They're happy enough to sell a smaller amount of cds for less. Of course their material will get pirated too, but they dont need to worry much about that, because the people that buy their music are more likely to keep wanting to buy it, to support the group.

I'm actually looking forward to when the large companies bite the big one and people finally realize that the radio doesn't give them all that is out there. And brittney will just have to go get a job.

Re:What can be do to help? (Destroy the oligolopol by jimmy_dean · 2002-11-29 15:10 · Score: 1

Channel all of that inventiveness, sexual frustration and technical knowhow into a love of mayhem. Theodore Kaczynski was a great terrorist and an outstanding nerd - you think your case mod is l33t - did you make your own SCREWS? If only half a dozen people concocted technically feasible plans to kill random record company executives through the mail, it would do wonders for our cause.

Ok, you are absolutely sick. Ted Kaczynski is where he belongs, in jail. Do you know why? It's because he was an insane, serial killer. He may have started off with a just-cause...but killing people just makes the cause go to /dev/null. Absolutely unbelieveable.

--
-> Sometimes, you just gotta break free from the shackles of proprietary code.

Re:What can be do to help? (Destroy the oligolopol by Anonymous Coward · 2002-11-29 15:12 · Score: 0

1. I'm on the fence here. I rarely buy movies or cds anymore, however, I've yet to ever download a movie via P2P or any other means, and I don't sit around sucking down mp3s for discs I don't own and don't intend to buy. This is quite an improvement from back in the day, when I'd be buying movies and cds constantly. However, I'll not deny myself the special edition of Fellowship of the Rings, morality and ethics be damned.

2. P2P really doesn't do much for me. If I saw a valid reason for its existance, I'd probably help.

3. Why?

4. You're right, the system is rigged, and the presidential elections in Florida proved that.

5. You sir, are an idiot.

6. Life isn't precious, it's very, very cheap. Anyone who tells you differently is just attempting to make themselves feel special, when they most certainly are not. However, who are you to judge who lives and dies?

Besides - wouldn't you rather lock the RIAA execs into a room with a boy band for the rest of their lives?

P2p libraries? by WetCat · 2002-11-29 15:14 · Score: 1

Is there any freely available (BSD license preferred) P2P middleware libraries for Linux and Windows?
I mean libraries that allow sharing of software objects (files, strings, etc.) between P2P clients in real time. May be addons to FreeNet?
How fast is that?

Re:P2p libraries? by silence535 · 2002-11-29 15:46 · Score: 1

Lately I found a reference to Kademila on the Information Anarchy Wiki.

Haven't tried.
Maybe you can find more on IA.

silence

--
Dyslectics of the world, untie!

AMEN by tmortn · 2002-11-29 15:15 · Score: 1

I have little problem with P2P. As the editorial points out the likely hood of P2P killing the movie industry is pretty unlikely. This really is little different from recording a movie on TV.

As for swapping copyrighted material p2p with music ? Music is going to happen. People will make it regardless of what happens to recording studios. Musicians will go on making a living. Personally I think music in general would be better off without commercial recording studios. After all we no longer need them to distribute music, a few hundred dollars in equipment and an internet connection can reach more people cheaper and faster than a large studio can dream of.

I predict before long you will see a music sight along the lines of /. with aspiring and major musicians contributing their latest efforts. After all concerts aren't going anywhere and its kinda tough to fit one on your hard drive.

As for literary material.... I'm sorry but you can go to your local library and get almost anything in print off the shelf or through a library loan system and I have yet to hear that such a system is going to bankrupt anyone. The internet is just the next logical step in terms of public access to knowledge and it really dosn't matter if that knowldedge is stored in a central location or on your hard drive.

To me p2p is really the harbinger of the death of publication costs. No longer do you need $$$$ to write and publish a book, story, article or anything else. There are no printers fees. I write my comments here and they are out to the public at large with the click of a button. Granted this insures a great deal more crap and less quality control but it also means a more free flow environment for ideas whcih in the end is always a good thing. Chaotic as all get out, but good.

--
I don't ask you to be me. I only ask you not expect me to be you.

Schadenfreude by xigxag · 2002-11-29 15:16 · Score: 5, Insightful

There seems to be a bit of wishful thinking of a twisted sort in Cringely's doomful prophesying. To paraphrase Twain at his most cliched, reports of the RIAA's death are indeed greatly exaggerated. Not only is the record industry adapting with more specialty packaging and combo CD-DVD packs, but more importantly, there's the fact that a whole lot of people just prefer to actually own the official package and are willing to pay for it. I myself...um, know a friend who...has on occasion downloaded an mp3 album and then bought the damn thing a few days later simply to have the real, legal, genuine, uncompressed item in my, um his, collection.

After all, many many years after the invention of libraries, book publishers are still in business. Heck, people actually plunk down premium dollars for hardcovers even after the mass-market paperback comes out in print. Amazing.

--
There are two kinds of people: 1) those who start arrays with one and 1) those who start them with zero.

Re:Schadenfreude by LostCluster · 2002-11-29 15:20 · Score: 2

I think the music industry is headed for the "widget frosting" model of business. Giving the core product away cheap or free, then making it up on the accessories.

HP is legendary for doing this with printers. Anybody notice that the cheapest printers always need the most expensive forms of ink? If you can't get them coming, get them going.

So Britney Spears makes more money going on tour in skimpy outfits, and being photographed in skimpy outfits than she does for singing in the first place... what a second, isn't that the way the industry has been for years, at least from the artist's point of view?
Re:Schadenfreude by xigxag · 2002-11-29 15:42 · Score: 2

In one of the previous iterations of this discussion, someone mentioned a Prince-style fanclub as a viable method for at least the top-tier stars. You pay e.g. $49.95 for a year's membership, and with that, you get guaranteed one full Britley album, one Britley DVD, two 8'10" Britley glossies at her most glossy, demos and unreleasted tracks on secure downloadable format and a chance to receive one of a 100 personally autographed photos. Maybe even a chance to meet Britley personally on EMPTV.

--
There are two kinds of people: 1) those who start arrays with one and 1) those who start them with zero.
Re:Schadenfreude by xigxag · 2002-11-29 15:52 · Score: 2

two 8'10" Britley glossies

I meant 8"x10" not 8'10", obviously. Although I wouldn't exactly mind getting a gargantuan glossy bimbette in the mail for 50 bucks. (Sort of like a reverse "Hand Maid May," I suppose.)

--
There are two kinds of people: 1) those who start arrays with one and 1) those who start them with zero.
Re:Schadenfreude by Steve+G+Swine · 2002-11-29 16:09 · Score: 2

I think you can get the 8'10" chick from Amazon.

--
"Consider yourself a member of a virtual corporation with Mr. Torvalds as your Chief Executive Officer." - Linux Advocac
Re:Schadenfreude by p_trinli · 2002-11-29 16:42 · Score: 1, Offtopic

After all, many many years after the invention of libraries, book publishers are still in business.

That's because library books have BOOGERS on their pages. Would you touch boogers? I didn't think so!
Re:Schadenfreude by noshellswill · 2002-11-29 20:38 · Score: 0

Dead tree publishers live thin. They're used to it in an intellectual environs. Music & movie distributers live fat. They're used to it in an emotocentric environs close to that of drug-pushers addicted to their own rush.

Re:I don't know about you but...Bathroom sports. by Anonymous Coward · 2002-11-29 15:22 · Score: 0

"I don't know about every one but I take my palm with me to the bathroom ..."

We know what happens with the left one.

"...and if I had a tablet computer I sure as hell would take it to the bathroom."

That answers what the other hands doing.

"Eeesh what self respecting techy wouldn't?"

A true geek.

NEW P2P IDEA! by TheSHAD0W · 2002-11-29 15:40 · Score: 2

I just had the greatest idea for a new "P2P" network. It would be fast and free, it could handle music and video, and the RIAA and MPAA would have the damnedest time trying to control it.

I call it a "swap meet".

You folks pretty much all have DVDs and CDs lying around, right? You bought a few, or perhaps more prior to MP3's huge escalation in popularity?

Is it really worthwhile having them around any more, when you can keep hundreds of movies and thousands of songs on a cheap hard drive?

The idea is simple. Burn your songs into MP3s (or OGGs, or whatever, as high quality as you want), and your movies into DivXs, then take 'em to the swap meet. Find someone with some new discs, ones you're interested in hearing or seeing, and swap 'em, one for one.

Take 'em home, burn those discs too, and next weekend bring 'em back to trade for whole new CDs. Hey, you've got 'em queued up, ready to play, or even burn onto new discs for your stereo, what do you need more plastic around for?

If this gets popular, it'd be hell on the industries. How can the copyright cops prove you're not just swapping without recording copies, trading new discs for old? Will a judge really consider your attending such a meet enough evidence to issue a search warrant on your house? After all, they're legally produced discs, and you bought 'em or traded for 'em, fair and square.

Re:NEW P2P IDEA! by Anonymous Coward · 2002-11-30 05:27 · Score: 0

This was already done in the 1980's. Big piracy meetings, trade things they got on BBS's. This is where the Demoscene with Demoparties got started big time.

Other side of the coin. by Anonymous Coward · 2002-11-29 15:55 · Score: 0

" Peer-to-peer movie piracy is practical only in the manner that any organized crime is practical: it works only as long as the host remains strong enough to support the parasite. Tony Soprano can't run New Jersey because then everyone would be a crook and there would be nobody to steal from except other crooks. No more innocent victims. Same with movie piracy, which needs a strong movie industry from which to steal. If the industry is weakened too much by piracy, the pirates begin to hurt themselves by drying-up their source of material. It is very doubtful that this will happen simply because the pirates, too, want to go to movies. "

Note the host-parasite relationship. This really applies to any producer-consumer economy. The problem as I see it is that it not only applies to things that require a lot of resources to produce. But anything that the majority will have difficulty producing. on their own. Reasons could be everything from not having the time (grow your own food) to being incapable,either physically or mentally (not many can write well, or carry a tune). The "information wants to be free" crowd conveniently forgets that fact. Hurt the people who have the talent (be it inate, or learned), and they can simply move to jobs that produce things harder to measure, and nearly impossible to steal. meanwhile the intrepid "parasite"'s left with two choices. Find another host, and hope they learned their lessons from the previous one (don't hurt or kill your host). Switch roles and become a producer (welcome to the other side of the fence) themselves, and hope no one else will do to them what they did to others. The coming times will indeed be a test. A test not only of business models, but people recognizing the relationship, and acknowledging that they have as much to lose, by their behaviour as the host. A putting of one's actions to one's words.

Wiki on P2P by silence535 · 2002-11-29 15:56 · Score: 2, Informative

The Information Anarchy weblog is being enhanced with a wiki centered around peer to peer networks.

There is already a lot of good content and structure. Go, contribute!

silence

--
Dyslectics of the world, untie!

Server is a bit slow already, so here is the text. by circusnews · 2002-11-29 15:58 · Score: 1

Resistance is Futile
How Peer-to-Peer File Sharing Is Likely to Change Big Media

By Robert X. Cringely

Maybe you saw the story this week about a paper from Microsoft Research analyzing peer-to-peer file sharing networks with the conclusion that they can't be stopped -- not by the law, not by the movie studios and record companies, not even by mighty Microsoft and its Palladium initiative for trusted computing. Swapping songs and maybe movies is about to reach some critical mass beyond which it simply can't be stopped, or so the kids in Redmond think. The story is interesting, that it came from Microsoft is even more interesting, though the authors carefully disassociated themselves from their employer in the paper.

But this all pales in comparison to the implications of their conclusions. These are smart folks, taking a stand that is surely not popular with their company, so I think there is a pretty strong reason to believe they are correct. If so, then what does it mean? Are record companies and movie studios doomed? Am I doomed, as a guy whose work is regularly ripped-off, too? And will the print publishers go away, leaving us with only weblogs to keep us warm? I don't think so, but the world is likely to change some as a result.

Maybe it would help to deconstruct what publishers and broadcasters and movie moguls do that makes them significant contributors to our culture. They take financial risks by backing talented people in the hope of making money. Publishers and broadcasters and film makers and record executives have taken the time and spent the money to build both a commercial infrastructure and a brand identity. The most extreme version of such financial risk-taking is spending tens of millions -- sometimes hundreds of millions -- to make a movie.

Forgetting for the moment that some of these media people are greedy pond dwellers, let's ask the important question -- how are peer-to-peer file sharing systems going to replace $100 million movies? Peer-to-peer systems can share such movies, but since there is no real peer-to-peer business model that can generate enough zeroes, such systems are unlikely to finance any epic films.

Well, right there we have a problem. People LIKE epic films, but even with the best editing and animation software, there is no way some kid with a hopped-up Mac or PC is going to make "Terminator 4." One can only guess, then, that people will continue to go to movies and eat popcorn and watch on the big screen despite how many copies of Divx there are in the world.

Peer-to-peer movie piracy is practical only in the manner that any organized crime is practical: it works only as long as the host remains strong enough to support the parasite. Tony Soprano can't run New Jersey because then everyone would be a crook and there would be nobody to steal from except other crooks. No more innocent victims. Same with movie piracy, which needs a strong movie industry from which to steal. If the industry is weakened too much by piracy, the pirates begin to hurt themselves by drying-up their source of material. It is very doubtful that this will happen simply because the pirates, too, want to go to movies.

But the same is not true for records. This is simply because technology has reached the point where amateurs can make as good a recording as the professionals. The next Christina Aguilera CD could be as easily recorded at her house (or mine) as at some big recording complex out on Abbey Road.

And text, well, text is even worse because it is easiest of all to steal. My columns are published in newspapers and websites and handed-in as college essays all over the world and there is almost nothing I can do about it because tracking down the perps costs me more than does their crime. From the perspective of the established publishers, there is also the horrible possibility that people might actually come to prefer material they find for free on the Internet -- not just pirated material but even original material. This column, after all, is free, and my Mother claims to find some value in it from time to time.

So movies, while they may be hurt by peer-to-peer, won't be killed by it. But print publishing and music recording could be seriously hurt. Maybe this is good, maybe it is bad, but probably, it is inevitable.

Of course, the recording and publishing executives, who often work for the same parent company, aren't going to go without a fight. We are approaching the end of the first stage of that fight, the stage where they try to have their enemy made illegal. But the folks at Microsoft Research now say quite definitively that legal action probably won't be enough. That's when we enter stage two, which begins with guerrilla tactics in which copyright owners use the very hacking techniques they rail against to hurt the peer-to-peer systems. This too shall pass when bad PR gets to the guerrillas. The trick to guerrilla or terrorist campaigns is to not care what people think, but in the end, Sony (just one example) cares what people think.

That's when the record companies and publishers will appear to actually embrace peer-to-peer and try to make it their own.

This will be a ruse, of course, the next step in the death of a corrupt and abusive cultural monopoly. They'll say they will do it for us. They'll say they are building the best peer-to-peer system of all, only this one will cost money and it won't even work that well. There is plenty of precedent for this behavior in other industries.

My favorite historical example of this phenomenon comes from the oil business. In the 1920s, the Anglo-Persian Oil Company had a monopoly on oil production in the Middle East, which they generally protected through the use of diplomatic -- and occasionally military -- force against the local monarchies. Then the Gulf Oil Company of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, literally sneaked into Kuwait and obtained from the Al-Sabah family (who still run the place) a license to search for oil.

The Anglo-Persian Oil Company did not like Gulf's actions, but they were even more dismayed to learn that Gulf couldn't be told to just go to hell. Andrew Mellon, of the Pittsburgh Mellons, was the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, and he wasn't about to let his oil company be pushed around by the British Foreign Office. So Anglo-Persian and the Foreign Office did their best to delay Gulf, which worked for several years. They lied a little, lost a few maps, failed to read a telegram or two, and when Gulf still didn't go away, they turned to acting stupid. As the absolute regional experts on oil exploration, they offered to do Gulf's job, to save the Americans the bother if searching for oil in Kuwait by searching for them.

The Anglo-Persian Oil Company searched for oil in Kuwait for 22 years without finding a single drop.

Remember that Kuwait is smaller than Rhode Island, and not only is it sitting atop more than 60 billion barrels of oil, it has places where oil has been known for more than 3,000 years to seep all the way to the surface. Yet Anglo-Persian was able to fulfill its contract with Gulf and keep two oil rigs continually drilling in Kuwait for 22 years without finding oil. To drill this many dry wells required intense concentration on the part of the British drillers. They had to not only be NOT looking for oil, they had to very actively be NOT LOOKING for oil, which is even harder.

Back to music and text publishing. Expect both industries to offer peer-to-peer systems that won't work very well, and will cost us something instead of nothing. In the long run, though, these systems will probably die, too, at which point, the music and the print folks will have to find another way to make their livings. This will not be because of piracy, but because of the origination of material within the peer-to-peer culture, itself. We're not that far from a time when artists and writers can distribute their own work and make a living doing so, which makes the current literary and music establishments a lot less necessary.

But they won't die altogether because of the record company back lists of music, because peer-to-peer doesn't do a very good job of self-organizing, and indicating what is important, and because people won't take tablet computers with them to the bathroom.

So we will have little movies and little records and little magazines on the Internet because the Internet is made up of so many different interest groups. For the larger population, there will still be Brittany Spears and Stephen King singing and writing for big labels. And that will only start to change when the first really big artists jumps from old media to new, trading 15 percent of $30 times 100,000 copies for 100 percent of $0.50 times 1 million copies.

The Grateful Dead showed that it is possible to make a great living even in competition with some of their audience. This is a lesson all old media must learn in time.

Either that, or die.

The interesting part? by samrolken · 2002-11-29 16:00 · Score: 1

the interesting part is what SlashDotters will say here afterward."
Talk about someone who must be new around here...

--
samrolken

It's a broken business model by Do+not+eat · 2002-11-29 16:01 · Score: 4, Insightful

The interesting thing that came up in a conversation the other day was that there is an entire generation of people who are growing up not paying for music.

I come from a generation that has been totally used to paying for things. For me there is a "guilt" syndrome about knowing that the music is made with profit in mind. So I am more willing to make purchases or delete .mp3s

How do you stay in business when no one sees a direct reason to pay you for the information they can readily get for free? It's a broken business model for sure and they are really fighting to stay alive in more ways than the average guy realizes.... It will be interesting to see what happens.

Re:It's a broken business model by Anonymous Coward · 2002-11-29 19:45 · Score: 0

How do you stay in business when no one sees a direct reason to pay you for the information they can readily get for free? It's a broken business model for sure and they are really fighting to stay alive in more ways than the average guy realizes..

I watched "Bowling For Columbine" in an arty theater. It's not playing on a lot of screens, so I actually drove 90 miles to see it -- because I knew the perceived liberal slant of the movie would prevent it from being played here. Afterwards, I thought about this question: "Was it really worth the 90 mile drive in heavy rain to see the movie when I could have pulled it off kazaa?"

Yes, absolutely, it was worth the drive.

Why? We'll I'll enumerate them:

1. I like Michael Moore. Enough that I spent more on gas to get there than I did on the movie itself to make sure he got my $8.

2. Seeing the show on my computer just wouldn't be the same. There's this audience dynamic that happens where audience members start feeding off each other. The laughs at home just aren't as big as in the theater -- and that is true in the rather dry opening, where he enters a bank to buy a gun.

3. It's only 8 dollars. And for a movie like "Bowling for Columbine", it's a bargain. "Goldmember" felt like a rip-off even at $5 dollars.

So what's the point really?

You're either going to have to risk regretting going to an overpriced movie or buying an overpriced DVD. Or, you're going to have guilt for downloading it off kazaa. That's lose-lose for the movie industry.

There's only one way out of this quandry -- Hollywood should start making better movies, and stop making people regret the whole movie experience.
Re:It's a broken business model by davew2040 · 2002-11-29 19:50 · Score: 1

We're still living in capitalism. It's hard to imagine that anyone will ever "not see" a reason to pay for a product, they'll just "ignore" those reasons that much more quickly.

For the people altogether too stupid to make the connection between purchasing music and supporting the bands they like, well... I guess maybe they'll get it once there aren't any new songs to download.
Re:It's a broken business model by fucksl4shd0t · 2002-11-29 20:34 · Score: 1

Well, I'm 28 and I grew up not paying for music too. It was called cassettes.

Conversely, I've pumped quite a chunk of change into the record companies. I've probly replaced my original pirated collectins 4 times, and I still don't have it anymore (except I have the original copied cassettes, but no tape deck). That comes out to around 1000 CDs that I've bought over my lifetime.

ANd I grew up not paying for music.

--
Like what I said? You might like my music
Re:It's a broken business model by fucksl4shd0t · 2002-11-29 20:38 · Score: 1

For the people altogether too stupid to make the connection between purchasing music and supporting the bands they like, well... I guess maybe they'll get it once there aren't any new songs to download. emphasis mine
Read this. Fact is, when you buy a CD you might be hurting the band. Boycott the RIAA-protected labels, and let the musicians know that if they want you to listen to their music, they'll have to use channels you like, such as P2P. :)

--
Like what I said? You might like my music
Re:It's a broken business model by davew2040 · 2002-11-29 20:53 · Score: 1

This is actually a valid point, but for all its abuses, it's still not a bad idea to remember that quite a few of the bands we know and love have been made incredibly rich by this industry, and that making money through this standard channel is still the dream of many an up-and-coming group. Convincing many of them to support P2P is difficult enough; forcing them to choose between P2P and the RIAA is just insane, and probably a rationalization for theft more than anything else.
Re:It's a broken business model by fucksl4shd0t · 2002-11-29 21:09 · Score: 3, Insightful

Actually it's not a rationalization for theft, since I've always stolen music. When I was a kid, it was explained to me (and I did thoroughly research the issue in the late 80's and early 90's) that you are *not* stealing copyrighted material if you don't pay for it. You are stealing it when you pay someone other than the people authorized by the copyright owners to collect payment. For example, if you copy me a CD, that's ok. But if I give you $10 for it, *that* is piracy. Fair use includes the right to redistribute the works and to collect a fee up to the cost of materials. Anything higher than that is not covered by fair use anymore. The EULA's that have been printed on CD's for years are themselves illegal (or were 10 years ago) and FUD all the same.
Let's educate the up-and-coming bands by showing them ourselves what we want them to do. You don't get people to do what you want if you don't do it yourself. Lead them, and they will follow.
And as far as the bands we know and love that are now incredibly rich, let me direct your attention to Metallica. Need I say more?
In their early days, Metallica encouraged people to pirate their music, record it at shows and give it to their friends, buy the albums and copy them for all their friends. They even set aside SPACE at the show so people could get the best quality bootleg recordings possible! I joined up with them during this time, and when they got rich and successful and subsequently started sticking a knife in the collective back of their fans, I dropped 'em.
In spite of their ultimate hypocrisy, Metallica got rich and famous because they toured a LOT, and they encouraged PIRACY. Talent, as usual, had nothing to do with it. :)

--
Like what I said? You might like my music
Re:It's a broken business model by Anonymous Coward · 2002-11-30 11:37 · Score: 0

For the people altogether too stupid to make the connection between purchasing music and supporting the bands they like, well... I guess maybe they'll get it once there aren't any new songs to download.

There will still be far more "old" songs than anyone could possibly listen to in a life time.

I also think the idea that if nobody was paying that nobody would ever write / sing / play again is rather far fetched. Some might not like the songs or the recording quality in a less commercial environment, but then some might not like the songs produced now... really don't know how it'll work out until we see it.

"Services" with a different meaning by Erpo · 2002-11-29 16:02 · Score: 2

They'll transition from Goods [...] to Services

I see your idea, and I like the concept of having live theater as a really popular part our culture, but I think they'll transition from "goods" to "services" in another way. The "goods" they produce now aren't valuable - that is they are only pieces of media. There's a big price gap between a $1 blank cd-r and a $25 music cd. The valuable part of what they sell is the information encoded on that media which can be infinitely copied and doesn't behave like a regular physical good because it isn't a physical good.

By finding talent, promoting it, channeling that talent into finding valuable combinations of ones and zeroes, recording those bits on compact discs, and distributing them all over the country, they're already providing a service. It's the recognition of this service as the core of the industry that will save them - people pay them for recording information onto CDs that can be bought, not for the CDs themselves. What they really need to do is work out a system of payment where they can produce a work and then hold it for "ransom" until consumers have paid a certain RIAA-specified total. If the total is met, the work is released. If the total is not met, the money is returned to those who paid it. The RIAA does not disappear, their economic position as promoter and risktaker stays intact, and everyone gets to keep their jobs.

What about the freeloaders, or those that don't contribute to the release of a certain work, but listen to it anyway? Well, if they like it enough to pay towards the release of the next work by the same author, that's an extra sale. If they don't like it, that's exactly the kind of person who wouldn't have bought a cd under the old model. What's to stop the RIAA from setting rediculously high "ransom" totals? Only the same thing that stops them from pricing CDs at $60.00 now. What's to stop consumers from repeatedly not meeting totals to drive down future ransom totals? Only the same thing that stops them from organizing boycotts of CDs to drive down prices today.

[...] Services, which (as of yet) are copy-proof.

"Production of new art" services will always be "copy-proof". The reason we're having this "problem" with piracy right now is that information must be un-copy-proof the same way that matter must react to the presence of other matter through the force of gravity. It's a fundamental fact of information physics. In the same way, generation of _new_ art is fundamentally "copy-proof". Yes, you can copy already-produced art, but the creation of new art can only happen when a (perhaps) talented individual puts forth a creative effort.

What is P2p? by BubbaTheBarbarian · 2002-11-29 16:06 · Score: 1

Dead...
Leechers, spamers, spyware, DMCA, RIAA, MPAA, ASS and all the other fun reasons why P2P will not work.
I remember once when we were bored in a testing lab once and figured out the number of world wide users of Napster and thier like during the heyday of it all. If the recods company got thier heads out of thier ass and asked everyone to pay 15 bones a month...
You would have done it...and tpo make matters even better, CD's would still be bought at least the rate they are now.
Instead...
Like I said, now it is ruined. Things are no bvetter now then when I was using a BBS and a FTP folders hidden on my CEO's root directory (a great use of wasted space by the way).
P2P can work, but RM must accounted for in one or another.
Remember, time = money...
Even if your Dick Stallman
-WAR TUX!!!

Peer 2 Peer killing print publishing?? by Dylan_t_p · 2002-11-29 16:09 · Score: 1

After reading through this article I will admit I agree with some of what this guy is saying, but then came the part about his work getting stolen on p2p serivces.....becuase I'm sure theres just millions of people that get on everyday and pirate news articles, if he wants to cry about people stealing his work the internet is the one to blame becuase there are thousands of differnt sources for news if I go to one site and have to pay a small amount to read the article I am of course gonna just search google for a differnt source of news. now as for the music industry, people try to justify downloading music by one of two things either A.cd's cost too much and I don't want to pay for them or B.I don't like the music I'm fed by the industry reason B I think is a good reason to get music off p2p servers, but when it comes to reason A thats just plain stupid for one thing costs of buying a music cd HAS come down I just the other day went to walmart and bought Incubus morning view and make your self cd's for $9 each and I got several other cd's for at or below that price cd's are comming down maybe not all of them but theft is theft no matter how you justify it (this isn't to say i side with all the crap the music industry has or will do but it's true regardless) Anyways mod me down if you want thats my sixty cents Dylan

Re:Peer 2 Peer killing print publishing?? by SN74S181 · 2002-11-29 16:55 · Score: 1

I think the 'work' of his that he's talking about beong 'stolen' is his documentary work. His 'Pirates of Silicon Valley' documentary is available for sale on the PBS website that hosts his column, and he has some other documentary work. If people buy it off the website he collects a royalty. If they download the video from a P2P he gets nothing.
Re:Peer 2 Peer killing print publishing?? by Anonymous Coward · 2002-11-30 08:38 · Score: 0

do you know what a period is?

Re:AMEN-Reality POV. by Anonymous Coward · 2002-11-29 16:13 · Score: 0

"To me p2p is really the harbinger of the death of publication costs. No longer do you need $$$$ to write and publish a book, story, article or anything else. There are no printers fees. I write my comments here and they are out to the public at large with the click of a button. Granted this insures a great deal more crap and less quality control but it also means a more free flow environment for ideas whcih in the end is always a good thing. Chaotic as all get out, but good."

Ah yes. The geek POV. Problem is multifold. One in a world beyond the first world, libraries, and computers, and the fast internet. Don't exist in the quantities that will make an impact. Two people prefer their information in forms that are the easiest, and most natural to the senses, as well as overall practical. In other words, your dream will remain mostly a dream.

Critical Mass in peer networks by PureFiction · 2002-11-29 16:16 · Score: 5, Informative

One thing Cringley hints at is a coming boom in popularity and capability of truly decentralized peer networks. It is the fully and highly decentralized network architectures that the Microsoft group credits most with resilience against any kind of legal, technological or political attacks.

We are starting to see some of these technologies emerge, awaiting integration into flexible infrastructure that allows fast, easy and efficient distribution of data, content or otherwise, between peers on a local and global scale.

The end result will be a combination of a number of technologies seamlessly interoperating like:

- distributed hash tables

- decentralized search

- swarming distribution

- wireless networks ... and many others.

It is nice to see the word get out: You cannot control the flow of digitial information in decentralized peer networks!

Where does all that money go? by portnux · 2002-11-29 16:17 · Score: 1

It can't take much to produce the crap that is coming from the music studios these days. The only thing I can think of that has any real costs is all that coke going up the music exec's noses. They expect you to pay ~$20 for a cd, to hear one song? The rest of the disk filled with filler material? No thanks! I PAID for that song when I went to the bar and paid $6 for a drink! I paid for it by listening to four hours of crap music on the radio, just to hear one song that DIDN'T suck too much! If the industry wants to kill p2p, big deal! It will just make the next new and better thing pop up to take its' place. They have a product that people like, we like to be entertained. But as long as they use that carrot to screw their customers there will be some form of resistance.

Some basic flaws by too_bad · 2002-11-29 16:18 · Score: 2, Interesting

I think this guy's whole article makes sense only if you accept
his fundamental unwritten premise: that the concept of P2P networking
is a zero-revenue generator, and that copying is stealing.

But the whole argument in this issue is whether copying per-se is stealing
or not? So the rest of the discussion is just a hyperbole of what happens
to the poor movie businesses if they are stolen, and what happens if everyone
in NY is a thief, etc.

The issue I have with this approach is that, on the one hand you say
its impossible to stop copying, and on the other hand you say copying is stealing.
Why not atleast _try_ to see if there is an intermediate standpoint
where you _try_ to see if under some business model copying can indeed
generate revenue but maynot be as much as the movie and music moguls are
making right now.

I dont want to start questions about such a model as such, and I am not even
advocating that such a model is definitely practical, but like all other
things in this world, it needs to be thought about, given a chance to
prove itself in all its manifestations and then be discarded.

It makes sense for the sheiks in Sahara desert to sell water to the passer-bys
at atrocious price, but does it make sense to sell water to the dwellers
next to a river ?

--
DO NOT PANIC

voting with your wallet by yerricde · 2002-11-29 16:20 · Score: 1

It's not your right to say the preview should be free.

But it is grandparent's right to refuse to buy Robert Jordan's new book if there is no free chapter.

--
Will I retire or break 10K?

I've seen a few people give examples... by mtec · 2002-11-29 16:25 · Score: 3, Interesting

of adjustment that is already occurring in the industry. Here's another. Ani Defranco who I'd never have listened to if it weren't for P2P went around the system. She wasn't loud about it - more matter of fact. She has a loyal fan base and her own label where you can buy her tunes directly (think she makes more per album?).

And yes, I turned my swiped sound into solid support - (I bought the album).

--
Cake or Death? Cake Please!

Impossible to prevent DDOS by yerricde · 2002-11-29 16:26 · Score: 1

Routers that drop packets with forged headers, all that good stuff.

If a DDOS tool forges valid HTTP connections from valid, unforged IP addresses, downloading pages in the manner of a normal web user, it becomes exceedingly difficult to distinguish DDOS traffic from legitimate traffic in an automated manner.

Slashdot is an example of such a DDOS tool.

And with authenticated packets, or with authenticated anything, there will still have to be a way to introduce clients to servers. DDOS may exploit that.

--
Will I retire or break 10K?

And ... by too_bad · 2002-11-29 16:27 · Score: 1

I am not sure why he is whining so much because in the
end he made one sensible comment:

" ... And that will only start to change when the first really
big artists jumps from old media to new, trading 15 percent
of $30 times 100,000 copies for 100 percent of $0.50 times
1 million copies ... "

This is exactly what is waiting to happen. Who loses ? The people
who are _NOT_ the artists who are making 85% of $30 times 10000
just because of their existing monopoly.

And we all know ... monopoly is bad ... right ?

PS: Is quoting his article here a piracy too ? Wooo ... I am
stealing ... I am ashhhhamed ...

--
DO NOT PANIC

Maybe people just aren't buying music by Do+not+eat · 2002-11-29 16:29 · Score: 5, Interesting

I never bought a single CD before MP3s...I just didn't listen to music. Now, I have some MP3s that I listen to. If those MP3s went away, I'd just go back to not listening to music.

Because "10.1% of people downloading music are not buying music" does not mean that the music industry is losing sales from all those (though I'm sure it is from some).

I wonder how feasible it would be for someone like Borders (trying to compete with Amazon as a music retailer) to directly sign for tracks with artists. Then they maintain at each location a fat data pipe (if this isn't economically feasible, it will be -- small credit-check data lines are already in place and data gets cheaper and cheaper, whereas CDs stay the same). Then they have a really fancy burner or press or whatever at the location. They download losslessly compressed tracks from the Borders central server and cache them at local locations (to avoid retransferring popular tracks). Then people can simply say "I want a CD and I want track X, Y, and Z on it". The money goes directly to the artist, aside from Border's profit.

So lets see why this makes sense:

* Artist gets money, users have less incentive for piracy.
* User gets to specify what tracks they want/don't want and get better quality than they would pirating MP3s.
* The user can buy CDs more cheaply -- by eliminating the middleman, they pay maybe $3 to Borders per CD (you automate the thing, with a little Borders card reader, and there's very little per unit cost) and 10 cents to the artist per track (hell of a lot more than the artists are currently making), and you get a full-quality CD where you're supporting the artist for $5 tops.
* Users would have a much broader selection, not limited to the few hundred titles that might be in the store.
* Borders makes money -- I suspect unit costs after amortization would be about 50 cents per CD, so they get a healthy $2.50 in profit per CD, which is probably more than they currently make.
* Borders risks far less than they currently do -- adding an artist to their central database is cheap cheap cheap. They don't have to risk warehousing and blowing shelf space on CDs that people don't want.
* New artists can break into the market easily -- they simply register with Borders, send in their music to the main server, and start getting money. They don't have to convince much of anyone of their music quality, since there's no massive production/warehousing costs for all the CDs.

There are two drawbacks. One, you don't get extras in the CD. You might be able to print out the cover and the CD label, if this "Borders mini-CD maker" machine was fairly capable, but you might not get other stuff jammed in the case. Second, even with a hefty local cache, Borders still has to transfer 300MB per full CD (assuming lossless compression averaging 2:1) for infrequently requested CDs. This may not yet be feasible -- however, data lines keep getting cheaper, and CD prices stay the same.

Finally, a $100 80GB HD can store about 160 fairly full CDs, and 300 with lossless 2:1 compression. That's a one-time cost -- like incredibly cheaply expandable floor space. At those prices, Borders can afford to have enormous local caches -- one sale of a CD much more than makes back the cost of storing that CD locally.

Re:Maybe people just aren't buying music by gimpboy · 2002-11-29 17:52 · Score: 1

Borders still has to transfer 300MB per full CD (assuming lossless compression averaging 2:1) for infrequently requested CDs. This may not yet be feasible

actually satallite access like direct tv would be good for this. the problem as i understand it with using a satallite service is that it has a high latency. with something like this it wouldnt really matter, all you would have to do would be to initialize the transmission. it might take a second or so then once the data started coming, it would come pretty fast.

--
-- john
Re:Maybe people just aren't buying music by jargonCCNA · 2002-12-02 10:02 · Score: 1

MP3.com has been using a similar model for a while, actually. CDs are burned as ordered, including a neat little jacket and case with the track listing. The artist can (supposedly; I haven't been able to do it) supply extras for the CDs and receives 50% of the cost to the customer, minus $3 for MP3.com's materials and time.

MP3.com hasn't got it perfect (they're using 128 kbit MP3s for the most part), but the model is definitely in place to be improved upon. It'd certainly be an interesting project to work on!

--
Matthew G P Coe
http://mgpcoe.blogspot.com/

Rental is generally not banned in the USA by yerricde · 2002-11-29 16:29 · Score: 1

I believe that with the exception of Blockbuster which makes license agreements with the studios, most movie rentals are no differert than the above poster's actions.

I don't know about the EU or Japan, but in the United States of America, the owner of a copy of any work other than sound recordings or some computer programs has the right to rent or lease that copy.

--
Will I retire or break 10K?

Amazing by Anonymous Coward · 2002-11-29 16:30 · Score: 0

The Anglo-Persian Oil Company searched for oil in Kuwait for 22 years without finding a single drop.

And Dubya searched for oil in Texas for many years without finding a single drop. How do you like that - a president Bush precedent. Say ... I wonder whether he'll find oil in Iraq ...

Re:shake me down, rattle, and roll...Metaphors. by Anonymous Coward · 2002-11-29 16:35 · Score: 0

>Somebody has to pay, somebody has to be paid, but where does that leave the RIAA?

"In the same boat as blacksmiths and buggy whip makers...."

Buggy whips

Blacksmiths

Wow! I do so love outdated metaphors.

Re:First post Whore by tha_mink · 2002-11-29 16:40 · Score: 0

stupid cocksucker.

--
You'll have that sometimes...

Fighting the inevitable by rolfwind · 2002-11-29 17:04 · Score: 5, Insightful

The RIAA and all those organizations are going to have to give in some time. They are not going to come up with their own P2P effectively, because it's been shown that most people want to shop at one place so to speak, but every company will want their own network (Sony, Columbia, etc.) and people simply don't want that.

Plus, I just don't see people willing to pay for music files, they are already used to getting it free off the net or hearing it on the radio, when I pay for music I expect a CD and something tangible. I know this isn't the case with software anymore, but music is different, when people buy music they don't just want to run it on their computer, but in their stereos, cars, etc and a DRM crippled file just won't let over 95% of the people do that, hence people will not migrate to these company offered P2P solutions when the free one offers them a "better" product in those regards.

I think to a certain extent, Piracy is good (Yes, someone throw me in jail please) because in any industry that has a near monopoly it keeps them semi-honest with prices and whatnot because then they have a competitor. Whoever says piracy drives prices up don't know what they are talking about- do they know what the profit margins on music cds are? Capitalism is based on normal human behavior, it's a model that lets natural selfishness benefit the whole within reason, and these companies are fighting this. And they will lose.

Re:AMEN-Reality POV. by tmortn · 2002-11-29 17:15 · Score: 1

For this lifetime its possible your right. I also could not agree more that we won't move to the death of publication in physical form as we know it till the develop a useable media capable of replacing the versitility of the printed page. I would say the first feeble steps can be seen in the tablet PC and other technologies like it.

However I think the death of the record industry is potentially much closer as digital music is rapidly getting to the point it could displace the current conventional means of distribution just as the 8 track replaced LP's, casset replaced 8 track and CD replaced tape. With the loss of physical control of music distribution record companies loose alot of what drives them currently. They will be forced to adapt or they will become extinct. I imagine they will survive in some manner or other. Probbaly by focusing on promotion instead of record sales.

--
I don't ask you to be me. I only ask you not expect me to be you.

Cool Idea by Anonymous Coward · 2002-11-29 17:15 · Score: 0

I just an idea over at theregister.co.uk about an ipod with bluetooth support where one could just transfer music to others in the area, ipod to ipod. I just thought that it was an interesting idea about p2p that I hadn't really seen before, although I'm sure its not original. Why bother with the internet and distributed searches and whatnot if you can just carry around a tiny little ipod and transfer music from your friends on the T on the way to class?

-Greg

p2p isn't going away. it isn't even slowing down. by violently_ill · 2002-11-29 17:26 · Score: 3, Interesting

i'm surprised nobody has mentioned IRIS (infrastructure for resilient internet systems, or something like that) yet. it's an open source p2p project coming out of MIT and Berkeley. It uses something called "distributed hash table" technology that i don't understand. it's supposed to make it so that as the number of nodes increases, search speed increases logarithmically. if nothing else, it proves that large-scale decentralized p2p networks can be as fast as closed networks like Kaza.

in short, all the of the big problems with p2p are being solved. while i'm sure new ones will crop up in the future (particularly if cringley's prediction about phase two of the industry's anti-p2p tactics comes true), it isn't going away. if RIAA ever manages to hit the "off" switch on p2p, they're going to have to deal with one hell of a stink, not just from media consumers, but from video and audio hardware makers, optical drive manufacturers, broadband providers, and musicians themselves.

it's nice to know that free media advocates have a few 800 lb. gorrillas in their corner.

Gee, it's like he can predict the future - NOT! by NewsWatcher · 2002-11-29 17:29 · Score: 2, Insightful

From the article:
"Of course, the recording and publishing executives, who often work for the same parent company, aren't going to go without a fight. We are approaching the end of the first stage of that fight, the stage where they try to have their enemy made illegal. But the folks at Microsoft Research now say quite definitively that legal action probably won't be enough. That's when we enter stage two, which begins with guerrilla tactics in which copyright owners use the very hacking techniques they rail against to hurt the peer-to-peer systems. This too shall pass when bad PR gets to the guerrillas. The trick to guerrilla or terrorist campaigns is to not care what people think, but in the end, Sony (just one example) cares what people think.

That's when the record companies and publishers will appear to actually embrace peer-to-peer and try to make it their own.

This will be a ruse, of course, the next step in the death of a corrupt and abusive cultural monopoly. They'll say they will do it for us. They'll say they are building the best peer-to-peer system of all, only this one will cost money and it won't even work that well. There is plenty of precedent for this behavior in other industries.

Is this supposed to be a prediction? All these things have already come to pass. Let me see if I can try to make a few similar "predictions":

There will be a decrease in the share price of technology companies that some will call the 'tech wreck' this will cause the NASDAQ to fall and investors to lose lots of money....

--
If the pattern goes 9am, 10am, 11am, why isn't noon 12am?

Shareaza is the best P2P by HanzoSan · 2002-11-29 17:37 · Score: 2

I think Shareaza using the G2 network is the most promising P2P right now.

Kazaa is about to be shut down, and I think Shareaza is going to be the next big thing.

P2P is still alive, Audio Galaxy and Morpheus took over after Napster died, then Morpheus died and Kazaa took over, soon Audio Galaxy died and now we have E-Donkey and Kazaa, when these two die, I expect Shareaza to take over, if not sooner.

--
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac

i don't think you're getting the point. by gimpboy · 2002-11-29 17:42 · Score: 1

at least i thought the point he was trying to make was that you could still purchase the music from the artist instead of the middle man. so you, i mean your friend, would still be able to buy the cd. the difference is that it would cost you, i mean your friend, less and the artist would make more.

i too have a friend that likes music and i, i mean he, has been know to download music so that i, i mean he, could find new music ;).

with respect to libraries, imagine walking into kinkos with a cdr, putting it into a computer, and having a bound copy of a book you just bought from some authors website for $1.00 printed for $2.00. i would imagine thoughts like that really freak out publishers.

it's not that the publishers and record producers will go out of business. it's that they stand to make alot less money. i believe that is what frightens them.

--
-- john

Re:i don't think you're getting the point. by xigxag · 2002-11-30 04:10 · Score: 2

it's not that the publishers and record producers will go out of business. it's that they stand to make alot less money. i believe that is what frightens them.
When's the last time you heard a newish Prince song on commercial radio? A Greatful Dead song? A song by any artist who wasn't deepiy in the pocket of one of the majors? It's almost impossible to stay in the limelight these days without massive promotion, without making expensive videos, arranging appearances on live television and so on. Even with the full force of the record industry behind them, major artists face an uphill battle against obsolescence every time one of their new albums comes out. Consider that there's already a long existing independent label distribution network that any major artist could take advantage of if he wished. But most successful artists prefer to stay in the big arms of the majors even as they are being sqeezed dry, because they know it's a cold cruel world out there without marketing and exposure.

That's not to say the major labels don't have something to fear, of course they do. In my opinion, that mainly boils down to two things.
1) Music's general loss of entertainment priority. It used to be that when you were a teenager, your meager entertainment budget went to music and movies, and that's about it. Now the music industry has to compete with DVDs and video games, and it's losing out in a big way. Part of the reason for that is:

2) The entrenchment of the "music as free" paradigm. Unlike movies, which at this date are still too time-consuming to generally download, and which have tremendous value as a shared theatrical experience, music can be downloaded for free, or burned and swapped among friends. So even though there is a core group of (mostly older) people who perfer to pay for music, kids are deciding their dollars are already streched too thin and actually are coming to prefer file-trading, which has value as a shared experience of its own.

Nevertheless, for the previously-stated reasons, I expect the record industry to survive, just in somewhat diminished form.

--
There are two kinds of people: 1) those who start arrays with one and 1) those who start them with zero.
Re:i don't think you're getting the point. by gimpboy · 2002-11-30 04:53 · Score: 1

When's the last time you heard a newish Prince song on commercial radio? A Greatful Dead song? A song by any artist who wasn't deepiy in the pocket of one of the majors?

i dont know, i dont listen to the radio. 90% of the new music i listen to i found first on the internet. i also buy the music if i like it. i personally think trends like this frighten the record companies, but thats just my opinion. i personally think the promotions and stuff provided by major record labels will eventually be replaced by websites run by fans.

say you like folk music. well i would imagine that someday you will find blogs like slashdot deadicated to different genres of music. you would for example find slashfolk where a group of fans who really like folk music post reviews of albums, give opinions of new artists, etc.

this is essentially what i do to find music. if i'm looking for something new, i head on over to usenet and poke around in alt.music.*. there i can find new bands, read about the ones i like, etc.

it will take a while, but as this method of self promotion takes hold, the artist will eventually see that the record labels have outlived a large part of their usefulness.

i actually do listen to the radio, but i mainly listen to npr. most of the other stations have nothing worthwhile to listen to. when i'm in the car with someone listening to the radio and i hear something like: "here's the latest from system of a down" at this point i ask, wasnt this the latest from system of a down 5 months ago?

you:
Nevertheless, for the previously-stated reasons, I expect the record industry to survive, just in somewhat diminished form.

me:
it's not that the publishers and record producers will go out of business. it's that they stand to make alot less money. i believe that is what frightens them.

so i guess we agree on the end result, it's just that the path taken will be different. i would really expect there to be multiple reasons for the diminishing of the audio and text publishing industries, i'm simply providing one which i'm expirencing first hand.

--
-- john
Re:i don't think you're getting the point. by xigxag · 2002-11-30 05:23 · Score: 2

so i guess we agree on the end result,

It seems like it. I also don't listen to the radio except occasionally classical or NPR and what I'm unfortunately forced to listen to by my mates at work. I also find 90% of what I like over the internet and then buy it if it sounds good and if it's still in print and if it's available in the United States. (Sample recent purchases: Sigur Ros, UTADA Hikaru.) Most of what I like, they simply don't play on Clear Channel Communicazions-dominated radio. I guess where we differ is that I think most people really aren't similarly idiosyncratic and individualistic in their music purchases. Nor would they want to be, even given the opportunity. I think most music consumers, esp. teens prefer to follow fashionble music trends, and so look to programmed commercial radio as a real resource to inform them about what's popular, what's new and yet comfortingly familiar, and what's good for dancing or for cleaning the house. The experiences of folks like you and me don't translate over to the Britley-buying public.

--
There are two kinds of people: 1) those who start arrays with one and 1) those who start them with zero.
Re:i don't think you're getting the point. by gimpboy · 2002-11-30 06:11 · Score: 1

i would tend to agree that the habits of your average slashdotter dont translate well to the public at this time. i do expect this to change with time. as people become more familar with the internet and what it has to offer their use will expand.

it is possible that people will just download music and not pay for it. it really depends on the numbers, and i cannot predict that. i know i've given _normal_ people cdr's of different music and they have gone out and purchased other albums by that artist. now the artist probably didnt get the revenue from the original cdr i gave them, but they did get revenu from the other cd's my friends purchased and the added exposure.

either way i'll be happy when the corporate leaches get plucked from the artists so they can produce at their full potential.

--
-- john

Sharing that makes money by hexa00 · 2002-11-29 17:48 · Score: 2, Interesting

What if we were to combine the completly free network and the possible future legal distribution system.

What I mean to say is that we have to make the users that share part of the payroll.

Let me explain, what if you made money by distributing the mp3s and movies you had on your computer ? Part of it goes to the bands and movie producers and part of it to you who pays the bw bill...

In that case won't you rather "sell" your bandwidth and hd space then give it away! ?

Then won't it be the end of the massive p2p sharring (a free one will always exist) but with the ppl you had the bw and space gone.. what will it be worth ?

The only problem in this is coordination of the whole thing ... lol a big part but still I mean it is possible to do that without even any centralisation...

For this to work the sytem needs this info :

1 - A way to indentify music and send the money to the right ppl

2- A way to bill ppl you d/l directly

This could be solved if we had a trusted system to make the transactions so that we could be sure of who really is d/ling. ( I kinda see paladium is this god forgives me ) And to whom are really the (c) rights...

If the system can provide that info then there's nothing stoping it :) and it will keep making money !!

we will see competiton on the content prices , on the bw prices too... the lower you set your bw
price to be on your host the more d/ls you get etc...

The higher quality and the faster you are the more $ users will pay etc ...

It makes a new viable biz :)

Now I know this is kinda utopic but I still feel it's possible... feel free to bring me down on earth hehehe...

.

--
Do what you wilt shall be the whole of the law Love is the law, love under will Capital drives the will of mankind

Re:Sharing that makes money by foniksonik · 2002-11-29 21:03 · Score: 2

What you are describing sounds a lot like the previous post

--
A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
Re:Sharing that makes money by foniksonik · 2002-11-29 22:06 · Score: 2

Doesn't this sound a lot like old-school Hotline servers? Except with the service being sanctified by the PTB (Powers That Be)?

--
A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.

What I Say Afterwords: Yoink by Cheesewhiz · 2002-11-29 18:05 · Score: 1

"...as usual, the interesting part is what SlashDotters will say here afterward."

Ah yes, in that case...have a mentioned that Cringley is in fact made entirely of wood?

(...and watch the moderations fly by...)

--

-----
"Cogito Eggo Sum: I think, therefore, waffle."

flawed conclusions by Anonymous Coward · 2002-11-29 18:18 · Score: 0

Cingley's conclusion "...And that will only start to change when the first really big artists jumps from old media to new, trading 15 percent of $30 times 100,000 copies for 100 percent of $0.50 times 1 million copies..." relies upon DRM to work, the very opposite conclusion put forth by the Microsofties.

The business model for music therefore needs to be music as a service and not a product.

Why P2P will prevail... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-11-29 18:19 · Score: 5, Insightful

Why is P2P popular? Because it's cheap? No. It's popular because you've got choice.

The problem with "The Entertainment Industry" is that it's so manufactured - so programmed. Some people can see through it, and those are the people using P2P (other than the folks leeching Britney...).

Examples: Tom Cruise has a new movie coming out - Suddenly, there are a whole bunch of old Cruise movies on TV. The Chillies are coming to town - suddenly, their old vids are on TV, and their songs are getting airplay. These are without including paper and electronic media in the equation. Ad those into the picture, and it's very, very hard to see anything resembling freedom of choice - it's all designed to make people "like" a particular medium icon, at any given time. If you examine it, you'll find that very rarely are their conflicts between "products" within a given market segment. Apply some Reverse Engineering skillz to this area, and you may be surprised what you see. I wonder what Fravia would have to say about it...

Anyway, it worked for a while, but now people are seeing the patterns, and seeing through the crap. They want access to the entertainment of their choice, not just whatever Sony or Tri Star decides to sell today. The Next Big Thing isn't such a big deal anymore for most of us, especially when Media Co keeps pumping a new Next Big Thing out every couple of months.

The media companies (heh, I say it like there's more than one...) can't keep everyone blind forever, so given a little time, EVERYONE will be using some form of P2P simply to have the freedom to choose what they watch/listen to.

When I look at the media companies, I feel pity. I see a bunch of archaic industries fighting a losing battle for their lives. The battle's over. They've lost. They just haven't realised it yet.

Re:Why P2P will prevail... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-11-29 21:40 · Score: 0

You make an important point. The labels aren't afraid to lose sales, they're afraid to lose CONTROL.
Re:Why P2P will prevail... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-11-30 02:34 · Score: 0

Yeah! Fight the paranoia that be!

Cringely is na�ve about pirates. by Anonymous Coward · 2002-11-29 18:29 · Score: 2, Insightful

> Cringely: If the industry is weakened too much by piracy, the pirates begin to hurt themselves by drying-up their source of material. It is very doubtful that this will happen simply because the pirates, too, want to go to movies.

Why is this doubtful, Cringely? No pirate is ever going to think to himself: "Gee, I had better stop sharing files for awhile and pay to see some movies so that Paramount and Disney et al will have the capital to make more movies."

No pirate ever thinks that his individual actions will hurt anyone. And he's right -- much for the same reason that no rational voter can expect that his one vote will actually be the vote that affects the outcome of an election.

Pirates only think and act as individuals, not as some collective Borg consciousness.

There are several likely scenarios that will allow the entertainment industries to survive the P2P onslaught. But suddenly obtaining the good will and generosity of pirates is definitely not one of them.

Re:Cringely is na�ve about pirates. by kliment · 2002-11-29 22:19 · Score: 1

The industry is not afraid of people watching movies on their computers. I for one do NOT enjoy watching movies on my monitor. Dvd quality is good, but nothing beats the experience of a theater. I have, several times, downloaded a movie, decided it was worth seeing, and went to see it. Then also watched it with friends in a theater. Then rented the dvd and played it at a party when people could not think of better things to do. I think that what the industry truly fears is not that we will see the movies in low quality at home, but that we will see how good (and I don't mean image quality, I mean idea, realisation and direcion/acting quality) the movies actually are without paying to see somehting like evolution or xxx. Sometimes the filthy critic is not enough to convince me a movie is good, but if I get contradictory feedback, I watch a part of the movie before going to see it in a theater, just to see its level. That's what I did with matrix back in the day, downloaded, watched, enjoyed, and then actually payed for it. My family now owns the dvd. But then again stupid ripoffs like xxx are not worth paying even a movie ticket for. (I realise there are some people that like that movie, but the bullshit advertising for it caused me to be really disappointed "would create a new genre of spy movies" - yeah, sure) So, let's give the industry what they fear most and only pay for good movies. Perhaps the quality will increase

You just don't get it.... by SwedishChef · 2002-11-29 19:03 · Score: 3, Insightful

You don't comprise a "large number" of their customers. You comprise a small percentage. Most ISPs would gladly see you haul your P2P ass to another provider... be it ISDN, cable, modem or whatever else.

You cost them money directly in your use of bandwidth to act as a server. You also cost them money directly in responding to legal challenges by MPAA, RIAA, and all the other "AA" groups out there. If 90% of their customer base is perfectly happy surfing and downloading email, why would they want the 10% that you make up?

And what other small ISP is going to spring up and gather you to their fold when they cannot make money on you? Do you see where this is headed? You are not a market anyone wants. You are a liability. You don't have any market clout. They actually WANT you to go somewhere else.

You guys all whine about how these "business plans" need to be changed. Well I got news for you: the business plans have changed. And you aren't in them.

--
No one ever had to evacuate a city because the solar panels broke!

Re:You just don't get it.... by nr · 2002-11-30 00:20 · Score: 1

Yeah, but that is not what broadband is about. The whole point of broadband is to transfer large amounts of data fast, ie movies, music and gaming. If the ISPs are in the broadband business only for E-mail and web-surfing, they are in the wrong business. You dont invest millons of dollar in highend network equipment and only make use 10% of the available network resources, that pure stupidity.
Re:You just don't get it.... by jon787 · 2002-11-30 06:46 · Score: 2

And if they had actually counted on people USING the bandwidth they were given they wouldn't have to impose transfer limits and such now.

--
X(7): A program for managing terminal windows. See also screen(1).
Re:You just don't get it.... by Anonymous Coward · 2002-11-30 11:06 · Score: 0

If 90% of their customer base is perfectly happy surfing and downloading email, why would they want the 10% that you make up?

Presumably these 90% of broadband customers who have it to surf and download emails are the same ones who light their cigars from burning bank notes.

I don't think there's any doubt that the ISPs have worked out what broadband is for. It's been very clear from their advertising. Christ, it'd be clear enough just from a little common sense.

If they need to charge more for the necessary bandwidth then they probably can do so. If they can't provide it at the current price and can't charge more then it's a market they're going to have to get out of.

The problem is that MPAA Gets It by alizard · 2002-11-29 19:15 · Score: 5, Insightful

Meaning that without real political representation via our own PAC or a high-tech industry PAC, we're all going to get it. Without Vaseline.

Cringely almost gets it, but he's made a major error in forecasting.

Apparently, Jack Valenti isn't quite the techno-illiterate we all thought him. He is no more worried about P2P piracy than Hilary Rosen is, and he's probably gotten plenty of entertainment out of her mistakes. As in the case of the record labels, this isn't about stopping people from distributing low-quality copies of product, it's about control.

MPAA is NOT worried about some kid with a loaded current generation Mac or PC making Terminator 4. Unlike their sister companies in the record industry, their business model is doing very, very well. They're selling an ok to good product at what people believe is a fair price.

They are worried about the next Steven Spielberg or George Lucas graduating from the UCLA Film School 5 years from now with a loaded PC or Mac with a story to tell deciding he wants 25% of the gross and that he doesn't have time to serve out a Hollywood-style apprenticeship.

He makes a rough draft of the movie using a workstation and a render farm in a box, i.e. a bunch of high-end current generation graphics cards. Or maybe he borrows some time on his school's equipment. How does he do crowd scenes? Were you paying attention to the article on the Monster crowd generation package? Like to bet that there won't be one downloadable or off-the-shelf by then?

What does he do with it? He shows it to investors and to a few stars who are either up-and-coming or haven't been selling too well lately and are willing to take a chance on a straight percentage of the gross.

How does he distribute it? Reduced quality copies or samples via P2P or streaming Real Video, via pay-per-download, etc., and actual DVDs to film critics. He pitches it as a TV movie. Once the film is in the can, lots of things he can do with it. He presses a bunch of DVDs and sells them off his Website at $10 a shot. He finds a way to get higher-quality versions (TVD media?) into the movie theaters.

Even if he doesn't, if he makes even a reasonable profit without Hollywood, his next picture will have serious budget behind it and he'll be able to cut a deal with an MPAA company that'll give him the whip hand. Or worse, the ability to have his own auditors check the books unannounced any time they feel like it.

Unless the MPAA locks down the technology and the bandwidth and locks it down now.

The MPAA movie companies know that one can make a high-quality record album using PC-based studio hardware and distribute via the Net if one can find buyers, and they don't plan to let this happen to them.

Though all this means is putting off the inevitable for a few years, if one can't do this in the US market, which is all but inevitable, there are other markets and with new US technology under the control of the RIAA/MPAA, the technologies to enable this will simply appear everywhere except America. The bright young people they're depending on for their next generation of movies will be doing what the ones who want to work in creating high-tech will.

Moving the hell out of the USA to anyplace with a Net connect that isn't under RIAA/MPAA control implemented by the politicians the Hollywood cartel has bought or are buying. What's the MPAA going to do when the hot new movies and video content is all coming from outside the USA?

Watching Americans buy it. Trying to get politicians to use import restrictions to keep it out of the USA either online or as physical DVD product.

--
Tech Public Policy stuff

Re:The problem is that MPAA Gets It by sheldon · 2002-11-29 20:26 · Score: 2

Me thinks you don't get it.

You are ascribing to the MPAA power which they simply do not have.

If worse comes to worse... by The+Jonas · 2002-11-29 19:51 · Score: 2, Insightful

I don't care if P2P succeeds or fails. There is always USENET and the abundance of .mp3/multimedia categories and postings. Will the RIAA/MPAA/DMCA attempt to effectively shutdown the smtp/nntp protocols which allow for postings on USENET. I don't think so. Data, by its nature, is designed to be copied. I have bought one retail CD in 3 years and not because of P2P networks. Their are too many other financial obligations in my life to spend money on music/media. I contribute to their profitable causes through other means - e.g., I watch MTV2/MTV and others on digitial cable, i.e., my viewing habits are recorded and matched up with advertising dollars. Also, I attend some concerts. It seems like the industry cry-babys are like most other sects of management - they have an aversion to change! Have I done anything wrong if I buy media (music/book) and let my friends/family listen/read (SHARE!) that media? Again, I don't think so.

Re:If worse comes to worse... by kliment · 2002-11-29 22:26 · Score: 1

So true, if p2p fails, and usenet fails, and the freedom of information on the net is restricted severely, there will always be alternatives. If something like that happens, networks like freenet will receive tremendous numbers of new users, increasing their capacity and speed exponentially. What then, a restriction of internet use in general? Technology, once developed and understood, cannot be stopped, an idea expressed cannot be erased. Information tends to diffuse and spread, and using networks it can spread without loss. Anyone who thinks the spread of information can be stopped after it is "in the wild" or even in the possession of more that a few very close people, should show me one good example of that EVER happening. And this is no longer about free movies, it's a matter of principle. Should information, including information distributed for monetary compensation only, be forbidden from replication? Can this be done?(Philosophically, not technologically speaking, can it be done?)

uh, WHAT planet do you say you're from? by alizard · 2002-11-29 20:01 · Score: 3, Informative

Replace your FM transistor radio with a decent FM stereo tuner and get an outside antenna. You have a surprise coming.

With respect to 28Kbps MP3 files encoded by a retarded chimp on a 386 while smoking crack, I've heard plenty of those.

Where are you getting your download music where you've never heard such? We all want to /. those networks and servers.

The problem most of us have with FM radio is content, not audio quality. But if one is going to the trouble of looking for N'Sync or Backstreet Boys on Kazaa, one should start checking into tuner card specs NOW.

--
Tech Public Policy stuff

Remember the RIAA bust-US Naval Academy? by alizard · 2002-11-29 20:05 · Score: 2

It would be tragic irony if FM tuner cards on PCs were the source of the "illegally downloaded" audio the RIAA got those kids at the US Naval Academy busted for.

Recording off FM radio is explicitly protected "fair use", not stealing, and as far as I know, this doesn't change because the recording media is a chunk of HD instead of analog audio tape.

--
Tech Public Policy stuff

Right by alizard · 2002-11-29 20:16 · Score: 3, Insightful

The survivors, or more likely, the new names among both record and eventually, the movie companies will be the ones who know they are in the business of adding value to an artist's content, not trying to extract value at the artist's expense.

They will be the ones with the how-to knowledge in creation / production / distribution / marketing and to a smaller extent, the ones who can loan the artists the high-end tools and venture capital to do a better job than they can do on their own.

I expect that there will be very, very few survivors among either record or movie companies of this shakeout.

--
Tech Public Policy stuff

CriticalMassinpeernetworks-P2P overcomes physics. by Anonymous Coward · 2002-11-29 20:21 · Score: 1, Interesting

"It is nice to see the word get out: You cannot control the flow of digitial information in decentralized peer networks!"

Think so? Grab a local map. Plot your position on it. Now draw a line from that point back to your ISP's connection with the internet (cable,dialup.dsl,doesn't matter). Make a note of all the equipment between those two points, paying particular attention to any piece that manipulates the information in some manner. There's your "control". Peer or no peer. It all has to flow over a physical infrastructure. The question now is who has the greater resources to actually win in the long run. Your hacking skills against their ability to have you thrown in jail. Should be interesting.

Re: who does buy the music - and why by noshellswill · 2002-11-29 20:29 · Score: 0

Most music is purchased by subteen females. "Tone" junkies is an apt description for these consumers of "auditory" hallucinogens. Specifically, large music companies supply a pre-constructed group identity. Something VERY important to subteen females. This identity is delivered by music analogous to the way heroin is delivered by a needle. It is a manufacture of the distribution companies, not of the 'artists'. So, of that $16/CD better figure $15.50 is paid for the preconstructed group identity and $0.50 paid for the pure sonic esthetic .

actually, "Oh,shit" by alizard · 2002-11-29 20:34 · Score: 5, Insightful

What's the RIAA afraid of?

Look up the word disintermediation.

MP3s sell CDs and everybody in and out of the RIAA knows it. MP3s are not the product, they're a promo item, just as tracks played over the FM radio with comparable quality (actually, I saw FM radio compared to 200K MP3, which might be about right given optimum conditions) are promo items.

The difference? Anybody can distribute MP3s over the Internet.

The RIAA is afraid that the artists who currently are already selling in platinum-level quantities will decide that they can sell CDs via Internet without them quite nicely and keep all the profit instead of a 15% of revenues as calculated using Enron-style economics.

Or the new artists with platinum potential will take a swing at this themselves. Somebody will get all the pieces and market momentum together. It's only a matter of time. Will it be a formula which can be duplicated? Since I'm working with an indie artist myself, I sort of hope so.

If the record industry believed what you were saying, they wouldn't be buying Congress to make laws that allow them to decide what technology gets deployed.

More to the point, I suggest you do some googling for record industry sales numbers. You'll find that the trend is uniformly downward, but look for yourself anyway, the practice with search engines will do you good.

--
Tech Public Policy stuff

Re:actually, "Oh,shit" by Anonymous Coward · 2002-11-29 23:25 · Score: 0

Come on guys, the issue is really simple.

I dont see any motivation to buy a CD once I have it as MP3. Sure, the quality isn't great, but it's the old audiophile vs. mainstream user argument again.... and there are very few audiophiles out there compared to mainstream users.

For Divx movies, the lines are more blurred (because a home PC setup doesn't quite replace a home cinema setup like a PC can replace a music system), but then again, DVD's are more expensive than CD's, and home cinema setups are much more expensive than music systems, so I'm willing to bet those factors cancel out the benefits of going legal.
Re:actually, "Oh,shit" by Simon+Kongshoj · 2002-11-30 00:29 · Score: 2

I think this is actually what the real problem is about. The recording industry isn't afraid of so-called "piracy" per se, what they're afraid of is becoming obsoleted. If recording artists realize that the 'net gives them a possibility to distribute music themselves (perhaps, at some point, a viable business model for online music distribution is invented -- I don't know, I'm not well-versed in business, but I doubt it is impossible). P2P filesharing networks currently seem to be the most successful distribution model that can potentially dethrone the recording industry; if players like Kazaa, Morpheus et.al start making moves that makes it possible for recording artists to make money somehow, the recording industry is seriously screwed. ESPECIALLY because technology also means that it is possible for artists to record music without using prohibitively expensive studio equipment.

.....that said, I don't use P2P myself, nor do I intend to. First there's the possible security implications of those programs, second there's the fact that Kazaa, etc. are absolute slime, and third there's the fact that while I dislike the big recording labels and all they stand for, there are many small labels out there too, labels that are not run by scum in suits and big cars (conversely, I think these stand a much better chance of adapting to different business models, since they don't have the option of buying politicians to keep their old business models alive -- they HAVE to look for new options). Finally -- I think the fair use rights of my home country are pretty reasonable, so I don't want to participate in anything that may end with these rights being dismantled in the political reaction.

--
Six sick .sigs, the Number of the Beast!

You're wrong. by alizard · 2002-11-29 20:45 · Score: 3, Informative

Here's how much they paid to buy Congress.

Ever heard of the DMCA? CBDTPA? Broadcast Working Group? Those items are part of what that money is going for.

You new here or something? Do a Google search on each of the above search terms and get informed. While flaming you would be more fun, you're more useful to the community if somebody hands you a clue. Go do something with it.

--
Tech Public Policy stuff

Re:p2p isn't going away. it isn't even slowing dow by burns210 · 2002-11-29 21:29 · Score: 2, Interesting

This project looks interesting. I will have to read up on it more. So, for those interested, here are a couple links you might want to check out.

Basicly, this system can scale to sizes of current p2p systems and far beyond. The system would would be able to "detect bad nodes quickly, and it would incorporate enough redundancy into the system to recover gracefully from tampering."

Re:CriticalMassinpeernetworks-P2P overcomes physic by PureFiction · 2002-11-29 22:46 · Score: 2

Grab a local map. Plot your position on it. Now draw a line from that point back to your ISP's connection with the internet ...

You missed the point. When you combine swarming distribution, decentralized resource discovery, and strong encryption you cannot tell what is going across the wire. It is opaque data, and that is what the Microsoft group is talking about. Once you remove any centralized points of weakness for the content industries to attack and monitor you lose the ability to not only track where data is going between peers, but also to even tell what it is that they are trading.

There is no doubt it will be interesting, but you are right: the legal stick is and will continue to be the most popular stick with which the RIAA/MPAA will beat peer networks.

Another reason that fully decentralized, open source peer networking infrastructure is not only advantageous, but effectively required to sidestep the legal implications of a far profit corporation in the US where contributory and vicarious copyright infringement is a real threat (most countries have NO contributory or vicarious clauses to their copyright laws)

decent quality FM sound? by alizard · 2002-11-29 22:50 · Score: 2

Try your local classical music station to hear FM at its best, they usually don't use drastic audio compression to make the sound seem louder.

Or perhaps your local college or high school radio station. YMMV, of course.

If you actually like Top 20 (as in no accounting for taste), try some audio processing software with dynamic range expansion capabilities, mess around, and see what you get.

Analog FM is about 50Hz-15K with a dynamic range of about 40db IIRC... compare this with RealAudio or 128K MP3.

--
Tech Public Policy stuff

It takes a pirate to spot a pirate? by blankmange · 2002-11-29 22:55 · Score: 2

Now that Microsoft has come out and stated that P2P is too big to stop, it is a fact? Or, better yet, is it because someone like RXC reports on the report? Just because MS (or some employees of) prints a report, we can then say "Yeah, I agree with that". Please.... P2P has been too big to stop for much longer than this. When Napster became the defacto standard in the popular media/lexicon for P2P applications, you knew where it was going.

P2P works because: a)it is easy to do - with broadband and relatively simple applications; b)people, not all of them but a significant number, feel the music industry is a monopoly and overcharges for music; and c)doesn't it just feel good to do something that is probably illegal and know that there is little or no chance of you suffering the consequences?

Personally, I don't like to see stories like this in the media, mainly because the less coverage my favorite P2P application gets, the more likely it is to remain in operation. Luckily, I don't see that app mentioned but just a few times here.

--
...we are from the government - we are here to help...

Re:What can be do to help? ---bad suggestions by mkweise · 2002-11-29 22:56 · Score: 1

Take that enormous movie collection and send it to useNET!

Posting unrequested, most likely unwanted binaries to usenet is counterproductive in many ways and wastes many peoples' recourses. And if you do puke the smelly, half-digested contents of your hard drive up onto usenet, at least don't think you've done a good thing.

--
Gentlemen! You can't fight in here, this is the War Room!

MOD THIS DOWN #@ -1; Piracy @# by Anonymous Coward · 2002-11-30 00:56 · Score: 0

Blockquoth the article... by Boss,+Pointy+Haired · 2002-11-30 02:00 · Score: 3, Funny

My columns are published in newspapers and websites and handed-in as college essays all over the world

Yeah, and thanks to you, Cringely, I only got a D.

Re:It can be slowed down... perhaps by Anonymous Coward · 2002-11-30 02:30 · Score: 0

What you've missed is that your proposal is fucking inefficient. What you've missed is software version skew corrupting one in every twenty transfers. Get some sleep.

Chilling Effect. by DaveOf9thKey · 2002-11-30 04:14 · Score: 1

Well, Borders isn't really in competition with Amazon. In fact, they shut down their web store and ship all Borders.com traffic directly to Amazon. But that's nitpicking.

The big problem with something like this is that it would jeopardize Borders' standing with the record companies. If they set up an MP3.com-like system in which any band could upload ten tracks and then sell a CD for less than $10, how soon do you think the Big Five would halt shipments of CDs? That would send customers to the competition in droves. This is the chilling effect that the major labels have created among retailers.

Only a company that has nothing to lose would try it. Borders has too much to lose to even think about this. MP3.com had nothing to lose when they started doing this, but they stopped being successful the moment Napster got people's attention. Finding a happy medium in a P2P world can be done, but it'll take a lot more effort than anyone really wants to give it.

--

Visit me on the web at Permanent4.com.

Re:Chilling Effect. by Shymon · 2002-11-30 07:32 · Score: 1
how soon do you think the Big Five would halt shipments of CDs?
1. that would be incredibly stupid of the record companies as well as incredibly illigal. You can't refuse to sell to someone who is willing to pay you. you have to refuse service for a reason, and selling an alternate product is not an acceptable one. the FTC would be all over this if they even thought about doing that. they may be able to bully individuals around but when you mess with other corperations, especially dening competition in such an open and obvious way would draw them into a potentialy fatal tangle with the goverment, a risk they wouldn't be willing to take to stop local bands being sold for cheap in Borders

Right and ... what? by dswan69 · 2002-11-30 04:44 · Score: 1

They've built a brand? Oh come on. Who buys a book, CD or DVD based on the studio? Oh, it's from Columbia, must be good. A Penguin book? Ooh yes, love Penguin. Author, director, actors, producers, bands, screenwriters - what are those? Just because we know the names of movie studios, book publishers and record labels doesn't mean those names carry any wait or influence.

Most of the time the stuff that costs the most to make and more importantly to market is also the worst garbage.

He's absolutely correct about making music - all my musician friends invest their money in quality hardware and software rather than wasting it on a studio - as a result they can produce quality recordings with only one upfront cost. And since they are interested in making good music and having people hear it they don't care how it gets distributed as long as if someone is doing it for money the musician is also getting his cut.

Micropayments are the future... by joebeone · 2002-11-30 05:05 · Score: 1

(this is going to be music-specific)

We need a micropayment system... this is the one crucial piece of infrastructure that is needed before a whole slew of neat business models open up. I realize that the major record labels are probably going to shed a lot of weight in jobs and shitty artists, but let's think about smaller independent labels for a second. A micropayments system would allow independent labels (indie labels) to change "(c) 2002 All rights reserved." to "You are free to copy and distribute this album as long as you support the artist by going to http://micropayments.indieband.com/ and giving a couple bucks. Please take a second and write 'http://micropayments.indieband.com/' on any copied version of this album to encourage others to support the band."

The advantanges here would be that a good chunk of marketing would be done by word of mouth. Bad artists wouldn't survive and good ones would have the resources that they need to keep going (assuming that listeners donate). Granted, once again, that such a micropayment system would not support the obese state of the major labels... but it would get $$$ to artists that actually do get royalty checks (most artists on major labels don't see royalty checks until they go platinum as marketing and promotion is taken as an advance and then charged against royalty payments... it's in the contracts and the majors have a virtual monopoly with respect to who gets recording contracts).

Switch Providers by anat0010 · 2002-11-30 05:17 · Score: 1

If you're in the UK, you might be interested in Oxdigital's broadband uncapped upload and download. Not all ISP's are the same, just shop around a bit www.oxdigital.com

Re:Huh? by The+Cydonian · 2002-11-30 07:49 · Score: 2

I'm sure there's a philosophical construct for someone who says "I want x", but actually turns out to be x. Very Sixth Sense-ish, without being too Bruce Willis about it.

That said, following your example, allow me to state that I only read the comments for the Funny statements.

--
More than mere navel gazing.

Destandardize the pop standard by jschwa · 2002-11-30 08:03 · Score: 1

More interesting than P2P's effect on the entertainment business model is P2P's effect on the actual content and form of entertainment. Once it becomes easier to obtain just the best, individual tracks from an artist than to obtain a 45 - 65 minute album made up of 10 - 14 3.5min tracks, does the entertainment unit of "album" lose relevance? Will we see less "filler" content produced to fill out an album? Without the arbitrary constraint of making most cost effective use of the the Vinyl/CD medium by filling it, I believe artists will be able to produce a lower quantity of higher quality material and distribute it directly to their fan base as a result of P2P, and this is good for the public, if not the RIAA. Maybe this will even free us from the decades-old but arbitrary standard of three and a half minute tracks. Goodbye Oops...I did it again, hello In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida.

Re:Destandardize the pop standard by WebMasterJoe · 2002-11-30 08:29 · Score: 2

Maybe this will even free us from the decades-old but arbitrary standard of three and a half minute tracks.
Actually, the three-minute standard length is not arbitrary. It came from early recordings on the wax rolls (pre-vinyl) which would make a full revolution in about three minutes. The restriction stuck when 45's came out, since they wouldn't fit much more per side. When LP's came out, a half hour of continuous music was now possible, but the radio stations had already established their formats and weren't about to change. Besides, the culture was used to having bite-sized songs, and couldn't sit through a long piece anymore. The three-minute-song is now hard-coded into the minds of most non-musicians.

The first Top-40 piece to take more than the standard allotment was "Hey Jude" by the Beatles, btw. That's enough trivia for today...

--
I really hate signatures, but go to my website.

You're insane by sheldon · 2002-11-30 09:09 · Score: 2

The MPAA is a trade organization which consists of various movie producing companies as members.

They are a PAC, which is why you see them contributing to polictical campaigns and pushing for legislation to protect the movie markets.

But they don't themselves create movies, nor do they particularly care how movies are created, nor have they ever worked to stop independent film producers from creating movies.

So in your paranoid rant you made claims that simply cannot be backed up by facts. The DMCA, CDBTPA and so on cannot prevent an independent person from making a movie using their own creative energies.

Get a clue, understand how things work before trying to describe a grand conspiracy surrounding them.

Re:You're insane by LeoHat · 2002-11-30 11:46 · Score: 1

The MPAA is a trade organization which consists of various movie producing companies as members

That is correct. Those movie producing companies have a interest in keeping the described scenario from happing.

But they don't themselves create movies, nor do they particularly care how movies are created, nor have they ever worked to stop independent film producers from creating movies.

Yes they do create movies. duh!
Yes they work to impede independant film makers. How many movies that show at film festivals make it to the mainstream? Not very many. Gee, I wonder how that happens?

The DMCA (and other laws) are so broadly worded that they can use it for dang near anything. Note the recent crack down on the release of retail sales advertisements, which were DMCA inspired.

--
The mistakes of a clever man are equal to the mistakes of a thousand fools.
Re:You're insane by alizard · 2002-11-30 12:17 · Score: 2

You, sir, are a tard.
Get that fixed before you make any further statements about public policy.
It's obvious to anyone who sees your barfing that you have no clue as to what I'm referring to.
The laws I refer to involve regulation of what technology can be designed and sold and it's uses, not laws against making movies. The only accusation that exists about the MPAA making independent movie-making illegal is in the vacuum you think of as your brain.
All the MPAA wants to do is to control the tools by which indie movies will be made in the future with a product quality comparable to that of current Hollywood production, and make effective digital distribution of indie movies impossible. You may make all the 16mm and Super8 or CVD movies you like and snailmail copies to all the film critics whose names you can spell correctly with Jack Valenti's blessing, if your allowance your parents give you will permit this.
Google for CBDTPA and Broadcast Working Group and find someone who can help you with the big words to explain how this legislation in progress is intended to control technology that is publically available.
If advanced technology relating to the graphics required to create movies and the ability to create publically distributable digital content becomes illegal to manufacture or import, your independent moviemaker is stuck with what's on his PC or Mac right now, which isn't up to the drill for making movies for theater distribution, much less cinematic epics such as LOTR, StarWars, etc.
If broadband ISPs bandwidth-cap and refuse to allow users to digitally distribute via servers, your indie film maker is stuck with no way to distribute samples of his material via the Internet unless he can get financial backing to buy T-1 (I mean 1.544mbps, not the first Terminator movie), though he's free to send as many unsolicited 16mm reels or more your speed, Super8 film reels to film critics.
The RIAA/MPAA business model says "You work for us or you have no way to get your work out to the masses." It used to be that technology and monopoly control of radio / in-store / theater distribution enforced this for them. Now that technology now makes it possible for independents to market and distribute directly to the masses, they're using their 0wn3d lawmakers to get through law what technology won't do for them anymore. How is it that you're the only slashdot user that doesn't know this? Well, you know it now.
Congratulations. You've made a fool of yourself publically. You are best off remaining silent and learning from your better-informed fellow slashdot users.

--
Tech Public Policy stuff
Re:You're insane by sheldon · 2002-12-01 13:31 · Score: 2

"Gee, I wonder how that happens?"

Pretty simple. The movie theatres only show movies that they are going to make money off of.

BTW, the movie theatres are not owned by the MPAA, they are owned by other groups. Some of them are owned by studios, others are not. But still they have to make a profit.
Re:You're insane by sheldon · 2002-12-01 13:35 · Score: 2

Better check with the doctor on your Lithium prescription.

Americans have not been paying since 1848 by Anonymous Coward · 2002-11-30 14:32 · Score: 0

The Boston Public Library, established in 1848, was the first publicly supported municipal library in America, and the first public library to allow people to borrow books and materials, a truly revolutionary concept at the time. Today, the BPL has more than 6 million books; serves more than 2 million people in its 27 branch libraries around the city; and is one of only two public libraries in the country that are members of the Association of Research Libraries. The BPL and all of its events are free and open to the public. At the Boston Public Library, books are just the beginning!

P2P is indeed well and alive.. by ncstockguy · 2002-12-01 11:02 · Score: 1

Au contraire. kaZaA has more users than napster ever did at its peak, and its as easy, or easier to use.
The article was an intelligent distillation of the issues and probably prescient. We shall see about that.

Last Post! by alpg · 2002-12-14 11:39 · Score: 1

Fellow programmer, greetings! You are reading a letter which will bring
you luck and good fortune. Just mail (or UUCP) ten copies of this letter
to ten of your friends. Before you make the copies, send a chip or
other bit of hardware, and 100 lines of 'C' code to the first person on the
list given at the bottom of this letter. Then delete their name and add
yours to the bottom of the list.

Don't break the chain! Make the copy within 48 hours. Gerald R. of San
Diego failed to send out his ten copies and woke the next morning to find
his job description changed to "COBOL programmer." Fred A. of New York sent
out his ten copies and within a month had enough hardware and software to
build a Cray dedicated to playing Zork. Martha H. of Chicago laughed at
this letter and broke the chain. Shortly thereafter, a fire broke out in
her terminal and she now spends her days writing documentation for IBM PC's.

Don't break the chain! Send out your ten copies today!
For example, if \thinmskip = 3mu, this makes \thickmskip = 6mu. But if
you also want to use \skip12 for horizontal glue, whether in math mode or
not, the amount of skipping will be in points (e.g., 6pt). The rule is
that glue in math mode varies with the size only when it is an \mskip;
when moving between an mskip and ordinary skip, the conversion factor
1mu=1pt is always used. The meaning of '\mskip\skip12' and
'\baselineskip=\the\thickmskip' should be clear.
-- Donald Knuth, TeX 82 -- Comparison with TeX80

- this post brought to you by the Automated Last Post Generator...

284 comments