rrwood writes "The latest Cringely is out. In it, Bob give his take on P2P and Big Media and where it's all going. Nothing new there, but as usual, the interesting part is what SlashDotters will say here afterward."
Why the RIAA's P2P vendetta is crazy
by
NewtonsLaw
·
· 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;-)
Cringely section?
by
mcrbids
·
· 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.
silly quotes from article..
by
doowy
·
· 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
Bad Monopolies at play
by
Alien54
·
· 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"
Cringely and P2P
by
inode_buddha
·
· 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
Maybe people just aren't buying music
by
Do+not+eat
·
· 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:Out of the loop
by
len_harms
·
· 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.
Slashdot Mirror
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
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.
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.
if I had a Tablet PC, I would!
..mork
-
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.
[emphasis added] It sounds so very familiar. Just like something the RIAA or Microsoft would do, if they were an Oil company.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.
Microsoft Oil. RIAA Petroleum. Really.
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
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
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.
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.