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."
Um, Napster didn't use nodes for searches.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 3, Informative
They kept every user's file listing on a central server(s).
What the slashdotters will say?!
by
VirexEye
·
· 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
·
· 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
nakaduct
·
· 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.
interesting, but ...
by
ender's_shadow
·
· 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.
Comment removed
by
account_deleted
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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;-)
Out of the loop
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· 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
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.
Re:Out of the loop
by
BandwidthHog
·
· 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
·
· 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
timeOday
·
· 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.
shake me down, rattle, and roll...
by
simpl3x
·
· 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?
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.
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
Lonath
·
· Score: 3, Funny
I agree. I have two ideas for this icon:
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
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.
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.
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
Re:silly quotes from article..
by
LostCluster
·
· 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.
From Goods to Services
by
sgtsanity
·
· 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
·
· 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
Re:Cringely and P2P
by
LostCluster
·
· 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:It can be slowed down... perhaps
by
Space+cowboy
·
· 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!
Re:It can be slowed down...
by
SwedishChef
·
· 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!
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.
It's a broken business model
by
Do+not+eat
·
· 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
fucksl4shd0t
·
· 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.:)
Critical Mass in peer networks
by
PureFiction
·
· 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:
It is nice to see the word get out: You cannot control the flow of digitial information in decentralized peer networks!
I've seen a few people give examples...
by
mtec
·
· 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!
Re:Cringely is becoming Crufty
by
silentbozo
·
· 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.
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.
Fighting the inevitable
by
rolfwind
·
· 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.
p2p isn't going away. it isn't even slowing down.
by
violently_ill
·
· 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.
Why P2P will prevail...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· 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.
You just don't get it....
by
SwedishChef
·
· 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!
The problem is that MPAA Gets It
by
alizard
·
· 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.
uh, WHAT planet do you say you're from?
by
alizard
·
· 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.
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.
actually, "Oh,shit"
by
alizard
·
· 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.
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.
Slashdot Mirror
They kept every user's file listing on a central server(s).
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
"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.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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
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.
"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
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
"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?
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.
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.
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
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.
-
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
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!
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.
/. now.
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
No one ever had to evacuate a city because the solar panels broke!
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.
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.
.mp3s
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
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.
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.
... and many others.
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
It is nice to see the word get out: You cannot control the flow of digitial information in decentralized peer networks!
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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
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
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
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
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
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.