2002 MP3 Winners and Losers

An anonymous reader writes "MP3newswire.net is running their annual losers and winners list in digital media. Each has 8 finalists with the big winner KaZaa for becoming profitable and doubling Napster's peak traffic despite setbacks like getting briefly booted from Download.com. The big loser? No surprise, it's the RIAA who despite several wins in court have failed in their quest to stem file trading. Lawrence Lessig and Dmitry Skylarov also made the winners list, though as the article points out it wasn't exactly a great year for Dmitry."

Comments

Aren't they a little bit off with this one?

[iapetus]

I seem to remember hearing something that might reverse the positions of Kazaa and the RIAA. :)

what about thompson

[Stanley Feinbaum]

I'm sure thompson media was a winner as they collect royalties on ANY product/commercial software that uses the mp3 format.

That's why patents are good, you actually make money from your ideas/discoveries.

Re:what about thompson

[GigsVT]

On the plus side, every new game I have installed recently uses Ogg.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

People really hate RIAA

[Jeedo]

People really seem to hate RIAA, and for obvius resons. RIAA's page gets hacked on a regular basis now and here's the most resent example: Pic_1 , Pic_2 , And finally the website as it appeared in HTML at the time.

Offtopic: Just how bad will it look on RIAA's system administratiors resimay to have worked there?

if only the RIAA had some vision....

[smd4985]

they could be the big winners. as the conglomerate that owns the content that are converted to mp3s, if they just offered a comparably convenient, legitimate solution to p2p filesharing, they would make money and save money (instead of paying all those lawyers).

Re:if only the RIAA had some vision....

[LostCluster]

The problem is, they not only own the content, but they also own the "distribution channels" that control what content is pushed into the marketplace.

The RIAA's MP3 fear is not that they won't be able to make money off of MP3s, but that people other than the existing RIAA members can as well. What's more, it'd be possible for an artist to gain popularity without needing the help of an RIAA label's publicity machine, therefore the artist could make 100% of the money off of the recording, and not have to give the RIAA members any cut of the action.

That's why the RIAA is trying desperately to block the progress of 'net-based music distribution in any file format by anybody. The fact that some people are surcomming to illegally transfering music that the RIAA owns the copyright on just makes their illogical case easier to argue. What they want is for the music distribution system to stay as it is for as long as possible, because if we ever transition to an effective electronic system of any kind, they will be written out of the story.

Re:if only the RIAA had some vision....

[LostCluster]

Let's face it: What you want is a cheaper alternative to CDs. Why would record labels want to give up their highly profitable and legally established right to sell CDs at $17 a pop in order to collect pennies in royalties off some Internet service

What it'd take is some CD pubisher willing to publish good music for $5 per CD, and making up the difference with volume because they end up selling many more copies at that price. The CD as a format is cheap enough to make that each disc could be profitably sold for $5 each. There's no need for a cheaper distribution media.

The problem is, once this anti-RIAA label makes its splash with quality albums for $5 each, all of the RIAA labels will flood the market with their products for $5 each. The upstart will have a hard time competing with its only distingishing feature being duplicated by everybody else, and not having the same publicity machine advantage as the RIAA labels. When the anti-RIAA label is wiped out, the price will then methodically go back on a path back to $17. Therefore, anybody with the money to launch an anti-RIAA label has no real incentive to do so.

Whew

[nightherper]

I hope this is really good news in the long run.
Today I finally went over to the EFF site and joined up after I had an epiphany of sorts. I realized that now is the time to keep the internet from going the way of marijuana and any other ideas, items or whatnot that have been made illegal. Just to keep someone's pockets lined with green that he's sharing with a few of his buddies which help make and enforce our country's laws. I love my country, but I feel we are not really as free as we should be, and that our freedoms are being traded for profit.

What is it going to take before the companies realize that the best way to fight their losses is to join in on it. By that I mean that they could release high quality mp3s (or OGG, but hopefully not wmp formats) with commercials tagged at the beginning and end. Sure, most of us here can edit them out, but they will still be heard. My idea probably sucks, but there has to be a solution, a compromise, or we all will end up losers.

Re:Whew

[DarthWiggle]

The problem is one of incentive. What incentive do the RIAA have to engage in such a compromise? They're not really losing an absurd amount in profits, because millions of people all over the world are still buying good ol' CDs, merchandise, and all the other tools of RIAA's profits. The RIAA isn't suing p2p services to restore lost profits, but to protect the distribution scheme in which they've invested a tremendous amount of money. Your idea that they should "get with the times" is noble, but it doesn't address the fact that the RIAA and its affiliated companies need to get a return on their investment in the business model that millions of folks are still participating in.

Add to that the fact that the "artists" are an absolute non-factor. Those who provide content to the RIAA's member companies already have a separate contract with RIAA which provides them with royalties, advances, and so forth. While it is true that those royalties depend on album sales, the royalties themselves are not, generally, substantial as compared to the revenue that RIAA (et al) retains from those sales. Further, and again, album sales have not decreased to critical levels. (I'd challenge anybody to prove to me that the decrease in album sales in the last few years is the result of p2p activities and not a foreseeable decrease resulting from bad product and the bad economy.) So, the RIAA is clearly not pursuing these lawsuits to protect the interests of the artists, who only detract from the RIAA's profits in the short term.

What we really need is a revolution in the music distribution system by aggressive labels not affiliated with the RIAA, perhaps a label that is, like Southwest Airlines, owned entirely by the participating artists. In order to have such a revolutionary change be successful, those artists have to pump out compelling product that will compete with what the RIAA's companies offer. So far, no label or collection of artists have managed to usurp the corporate-art of Britney, Christina, etc.

I wish the RIAA would just disappear. But they have enough of a market to make their business model tenable. Until that market is disrupted in a real way, RIAA is going to keep doing what they're doing, and they're going to win.

If you want a change, don't just download MP3s of RIAA artists. Support non-RIAA artists and labels. Find artists who sell their music directly to the consumer. That's how to fight the RIAA.

Re:Aren't they a little bit... (Kazaa can be...)

[$$$$$exyGal]

Latest Kazaa news: Kazaa can be sued.

--naked

Uh

[mstyne]

...though as the article points out it wasn't exactly a great year for Dmitry.

May I be the first to say: "No shit!"

RTFA

[citizenc]

And the RIAA has had excellent results in the courts. They saw the destruction of Napster by the California legal system. They have left Madster (formerly Aimster) bloodied on the ropes and about to be called for a TKO and this month they won the right to sue Australian-based KaZaa in the US.

What has this won them so far? To be quite blunt, nothing. (Source)

[Insert witty you-should-have-read-the-article comment here.]

KazAa is Unfortunate

[monoqlith]

Kazaa, it seems to me, is a fundamentally flawed approach to file sharing. Sure, it's a strong program, well implemented, well maintained - but it seems to violate the very principle which makes file sharing symptomatic of a wider, very important issue in the music/film industry - openness. They have yet, for example, to port their software to Linux or Mac OS X. They don't release their source code. They are profitting on something which qualifies, very obviously, as stealing. How are we to make the principle of file and information sharing and open models legimitate if the main proponent of anti-corporate file sharing is a corporate, profitable entity in and of itself? The only way to make file sharing a legitimate cause is to make it an open cause - to force the middle men out of contention by making a legimate counter-movement and unfurl the banners of open source, open information, open everything. I don't support KazAa for this reason. It's a very efficient(and for them, very profitable) way to steal. The music industry needs incentive to reform, to make something as easy as KazAa available to its demographic. It has yet to do this, and I don't see how KazAa is helping.

Kazaa profitable... that's not worth a celebration

[LostCluster]

I'm not sure Kazaa being profitable is that good of a thing for the 'net in general.

Remember, Kazaa is a Spyware/Adware-filled program which brings along with it a lot of annoying programs that pop-up ads while users are browsing sites other than their own, redirect click-through commissions from sites other than their own, and spy on users when using programs other than their own.

Kazaa simply has no morals. They're not just stealing from the RIAA, but if you run a website they're stealing from you too. If you haven't noticed, they don't have much respect the laws of the U.S, Canada, Mexico, U.K... or anywhere else that says stealing is wrong.

Kazaa should just go away... the online world would be better off without them. Them being profitable is a very scary thing...

SkLYarov, not Skylarov!

[infolib]

Both the linked article and the /. story has it wrong.

If you doubt me compare this with this.

I just think the error shouldn't be allowed to propagate.
Besides, I woke up this morning and found out I had mutated into a spelling nazi. I just hate it when that happens...

Emusic not on list?

[bluegreenone]

I was surprised that emusic.com didn't make their list. As one of the largest online providers of legal, non-DRM MP3s on the net they should have at least garnered an honorable mention. With practically unlimited downloads for $10 or $15 a month, I'd say consumers are the big winners here. I've been using the service for the past month and my music collection, especially jazz, has grown larger than it ever could have at $15 a CD.

Re:"file trading"

[Blue Stone]

"you can't steal without takeing something away from someone"

Actually, it's even less simple than that.
In English Law at least, in order to be convicted of theft, it has to be demonstrated that a person intended to permanently deprive a person of his lawfully owned goods.
It would seem that a credible, "I was only borrowing it," defence is reasonable grounds for no action being taken [criminally at least.]

An advice to all the totalitarian countries

[iamacat]

It's totally all right to arrest US tourists that broke the laws of your country while living in their own. Have a female visitor from Adobe in Saudi Arabia who doesn't wear a veil at home? Into the jail she goes. It's even Ok to give her job offers and lure her into your country just to arrest her for breaking your laws.

No we don't want anything like that to happen. But both Adobe and US justice system should apologize for Dmitry's detention and make sure nothing like this will happen again. Otherwise, they will have no recourse when a tourist from Texas is jailed in Europe for keeping a firearm in his house.

There are other ways to protect local laws. US certainly could deny a visa to Dmitry or make it illegal for anyone to buy or sell his/her software while in the country. Countries can also sign extradiction treaties to enforce common laws. But if I do something which is legal in my country and then come to yours and follow your laws while there, you can kick me out but not arrest me.

I know someone will say that IP laws are different from making people wear a veil or stay away from a particular religion. But, just imagine you didn't grow up conditioned to the stuff. Then, one day someone tells you a story that you like very much. You are happy and share this story with your friends. Would you expect to end up in jail, even if that someone asked you not to repeat it?

Also, consider the Church of Scientology. If a country accepts their IP rights and prevents people from distributing scientology texts, isn't it a form of religious control? True, in US you will probably get some cease-and-desist warnings before you get arrested for practicing unlicensed scientology. And you might go to a nicer jail than in totalitarian countries. But now we are talking about methods, not principles.

Anyway, countries should just agree to only abuse their own citizens and just decide weather to let others in. In the meanwhile, I hope Adobe is carefully considering foreign laws and background of their employees before sending someone on a business trip. I hear preventing someone from backing up programs they bought is illegal in Russia.

Re:An advice to all the totalitarian countries

[MrWa]

imacat tried to raise his karma by writing: Otherwise, they will have no recourse when a tourist from Texas is jailed in Europe for keeping a firearm in his house.

Why do people always make it look like Dmitry was arrested for writing the software? It was the distribution in the US - which he and his company were doing willingly - that was the problem, not writing the software.

What you really happened was closer to: "...a tourist from Texas is jailed in Europre for keeping a firearm in his hotel room in Europe.".

Now, I agree that the law is no good - but don't obfuscate the issue by misrepresenting what really happened. That does no one any good.

Edonkey

[Jacek Poplawski]

I don't understand why there is no single word about Edonkey in articles. Kazaa doesn't work in Linux (at least without Wine) and AFAIK lack few features of Edonkey network.
Why Edonkey community is ignored in such comparisions? Is it really so small?

You missed the whole point of the case...

[MyNameIsFred]

They weren't in trouble because they had a product that was sold in Russia. They were in trouble because they sold the product in the U.S. With a major point being that they used servers owned by an American company. As with the recent court cases concerning whether Calif. courts have jurisdiction, that fact was important. Without the sales in the U.S., they could not have been tried.

All this talk of piracy.. Its not always correct.

[nurb432]

First of all, p2p is used for more then piracy. Its not the "sole intent" as many people like to pretend.

Yes pirating occurs.. but so does drug running on our roads.. does that make it the 'sole intent'. No of course not.

Plus you are also not considering that waht you consider piracy only applies to YOUR country. many do not reconize copyrights, so its NOT, I repeat, NOT piracy there...

Try to spread the truth, not biased lies desgined to skew public opinion.

Hey RIAA Want a clue? READ THIS!

[Newer Guy]

"An acquaintance recently purchased the new Peter Gabriel CD. It played fine on her standard CD players, but would not play on her computer at work where she regularly listens to music to pass the tedium of her job. What did she do? She simply downloaded the files from the Net onto her PC and played that instead. The problem is she was still angry that the CD she bought was intentionally disabled, preventing her from using it as she wished. Do you know what she did next? She returned the CD. A perfect example of a dissatisfied consumer who (had) already committed to the purchase and was completely discouraged by the intentional hampering of the product. Scariest for the music industry was when I heard her angrily mutter these words..."I won't make that mistake again."" Did you hear that, RIAA? Your antics are really pissing off your customers! Oh wait - I forgot...you don't call them customers, do you? You call them thieves and pirates!

All your talk of piracy.. Its always incorrect.

[LostCluster]

First of all, p2p is used for more then piracy. Its not the "sole intent" as many people like to pretend.
Those who use P2P for legal uses are fine. Those who use P2P for illegal uses are in trouble, it's a bad sign that there's more in the second category than the first.

Yes pirating occurs.. but so does drug running on our roads.. does that make it the 'sole intent'. No of course not.
The highways in the United States are used for legal activities that the government actually wants to occur far more often than drug running occurs. We do make an effort to arrest the drug dealers who use the highways that way. Besides, if the highways were being used by drug runners at the same percentage that illegal files are going over P2P, the government would likely have stopped maintaining the highways anyway.

Plus you are also not considering that waht you consider piracy only applies to YOUR country. many do not reconize copyrights, so its NOT, I repeat, NOT piracy there...
Check the list of countries that don't enforce the simple (non-DMCA-like) copyright laws, and you'll notice that they're mostly countries that have problems with human rights as well. Since you're capable of posting on Slashdot and are refering to copyright-lawless lands as "there" rather than "here", I assume you are not living in such a country. If you'd rather their set of laws for its copyright feature, be willing to accept the rest of the package.

Try to spread the truth, not biased lies desgined to skew public opinion.
A biased selection of facts designed to skew public opinion is what you practice.

Why Kazaa?

[sean23007]

What I want to know is: why would they choose Kazaa as the number one winner?? That makes absolutely no sense. They talk about how great it is that they are profitable, and then in the same breath explain how they got that profitability: "by stuffing the app with adware, spyware, and most notoriously Brilliant Digital's Altnet, a distributed computing program covertly placed on users machines when KaZaa was downloaded." What is the author trying to do, promote such underhanded moneymaking techniques? When other developers and companies read this, they will undoubtedly make a connection. "How can we be more profitable? Well, Kazaa did it with adware, spyware, and lying to its customers." All those things should of course be mentioned, but in the Losers list, not the Winners. The adware, spyware, and covertly placed programs were the reason I never downloaded Kazaa, and never will. If Kazaa is going to be number one, they should be there because of the FastTrack network, which I think is wonderful. My vote would have gone to Kazaa Lite, which should definitely be up there on the list. It connects you to the FastTrack network without spying on you or lying to you.

Kazaa Lite is the real winner, not Kazaa.

iPod

[sean23007]

Having recently picked up an iPod, I think it's great. However, I do have a few qualms with it. The wonderful device can only be "linked" to one computer at a time, and if you ever accidentally hit "Yes" when you've plugged it into the wrong computer you lose all your songs and have to set them all back up again on your main iPod computer. I have several computers on my home network, and they all have MP3s on them. I wanted to be able to use my iPod to transfer files between each of them, but you cannot take files off the iPod. The Firewire connection is blazingly fast, and I love that, but in my mind its inability to transfer files between computers is a crippling issue. If it had this capability, it would be number one on the RIAA's hitlist, which could become one of its biggest selling points. After all, the MP3 Winners' List said it itself: in this post-Napster world, the number one indicator of the quality of a product is the fervor with which the RIAA wants to kill it.

And by the way, connecting the iPod to that little FM transmitter they sell at the Apple Store is incredible. You sit down in your car and all the music you want is playing on the radio, without commercials. It's like satellite radio but you choose ALL the music, not just the station. I love my iPod, and I think it should have been placed higher than Kazaa on the list. It is better for the music lover than Kazaa, because Kazaa can pretty much only be used for stealing shoddy versions of the music. The iPod can be used with MP3s ripped from CD, so you can control the quality of your music. I hate downloaded music, because so much of it sucks (qualitywise).

Re:How it all works

[tcc]

Well I have an account here, I have about 500 posts, so I can call myself an "active user".

The way you are talking is like if EVERYONE here that has an account is a pirate, that EVERYONE here that is an active member fits the profile you are mentionning.

Do you know what's the % of browsers that are connecting here that are Internet Explorer? Last time I saw the numbers, it was more than 40%, so I wouldn't call this a "linux-only fanatic website", in fact, I don't really care about the open-source versus proprietary software debate, Both exists, both have shown great advantages and great flaws. I couldn't care less about the MP3/RIAA debate, but see? there are other subjects here that are of interests, and I am sure that the "40%" figure using IE couldn't care less about the few who yells louder about sticking it to the man, like you say.

What I find irritating is when someone comes in , post something generalizing a userbase and think he knows everything, and the others modding him up are as hypocrite as he is. If you don't like it, you have the right, just go away, don't read it and get frustrated because of what you see, heck, consult someone if it stops you for sleeping!.

Here's a cluebat to knock yourself with: There are 1000s of users here, if one day the "kill them all" side post more comments on a specific article, it doesn't mean that the "Who cares" side is smaller or approves what is written under that specific article. Without getting into extensive statistical/probability issues, if one day 1 or 10 people are saying how bad the MPAA is, maybe it's not those same 1 or 10 people that are posting that article about how good spiderman was and they should buy the dvd.

Oh yeah, Taco does... well this guy runs the damn site, if I had a website that would have a lot of hits like his and that I had a minimal powertrip, I'd love to speak out loud like he's doing, almost anyone would. And besides, who tell's you its always his sincere opinion? maybe being provocative makes people post even more and generates discussions, that's what this site is about no? getting a clue now? good. Hope I helped. :)

--- Original message ---

These are all bleatings of the party lines. Here, we consider proprietary software Evil until Rob Malda tells us otherwise, or it gets ported to Linux. Then it becomes a special class of proprietary software which somehow becomes better than the rest. KaZaA is one example. WordPerfect is another. Somehow, they are able to ignore this seemingly large discrepency by claiming that these companies are "helping" the "community". The only one being helped is VA Research^W Linux^W Software who gets to sell ads to these people after giving them free publicity on the most popular "Linux" site of them all.

Prepare to be swallowed

[Windcatcher]

I work in IT. Whenever I talk to other people who work in IT (and for that matter people who don't), most of the time I hear that the music distributors (e.g. RIAA) have outlived their usefulness. Once Hilary Rosen remarked that the IT industry was swallowing their industry.

It is. We are.

When you can electronically transfer music and burn it to recordable, red book-compatible media, when you can print cover art on an inkjet or color laser printer, there is absolutely no need for music distribution companies. No need whatsoever. And, more importantly, no need to pay US$21.99 for a music CD anymore.

The problem that the RIAA has is that people aren't nearly as stupid as they think. Uninformed perhaps, but not stupid. When people are clued in I always see the same response: we should either be able to download music for a small fee, or call our local music store, tell them what we want burned and printed, and head over to pick up our custom CD for all of 5 bucks.

So yes, the IT industry is going to swallow the record distribution industry, just as the automotive industry swallowed up the need for horses and buggies (and buggy whips).

Re:Prepare to be swallowed

[Eric Damron]

I agree with your point that modern computer science makes it possible to distribute content, musical and otherwise, without the traditional business models. I also agree with your inference that the music industry is gouging the consumer with inflated CD prices.

However, I believe that the RIAA and its members are incapable of adapting. There are a lot of big egos in almost all organizations and the RIAA and MPAA are no exceptions. Jack Valenti, the president of the Motion Picture Association of America is one of the most arrogant SOBs I have ever seen. At one time he was a close aide to President Lyndon Johnson and it appears that he feels that he is superior to you or me.

I think it unlikely that he can see past that enormous ego of his to let go of the old school of 'control and dominate' to embrace a new way of doing business. In his narrow minded view of the world the only thing to do is to use his influence and the MPAA's wealth to lobby our government in an effort to pass laws that would extend his pathetic 'control and dominate' philosophy.

So he bought Senator Fritz Hollings and maybe others. Hollings sponsored that horrid bill the SSSCA that would require that hardware manufactures imbed circuitry in all digital devices so that the entertainment industry could have control over what we would be allowed to copy. Analog output would be made illegal so that we couldn't use low tech devices to re-record entertainment content.

Hmmm... I seem to have gone off on a rant. Anyway, I agree that technology is making distribution of content easier but don't look for the entertainment industry to embrace change any time soon.

There is software for mult. computers

[Anonymous Coward]

Check Versiontracker for software to take files off of an ipod. And click the preferences in itunes so it won't overwrite the ipod. It's not that hard...

A loophole has been closed, get over it.

[Proc6]

I just can't help but think about the poor individuals in the other 98% of the industries in the world that are bound to the laws of physics when it comes to earning a profit.

I am sorry, I have no sympathy for the labels, or even the artists really (sorry) when it comes to losing their CD profits.

Let's not forget, not so very long ago, there really wasn't a way to record music. So, music, like every other form of "service" us humans provide, was a 1:1 ratio. If a show charged a fee to see, you paid it. If you wanted to see it again, you paid again. Much like 2 donkeys for 2 dollars, 4 donkeys for 4. Music was an artform, experienced first hand.

Then one day, technology advanced and shook things up. For a brief period a loophole was opened for a very small segment of individuals. It was discovered that an "artist" could "perform" only once, yet make virtually limitless, 100% accurate copies of their performance and sell them to everyone on the planet for pennies of production costs. Amazing! Sure, doctors, architects, automobile makers, any just about anyone else on the face of the earth that builds something or does something for money will never be able to (barring huge advancements in quantum replicators) do this. But who cares! Musicians could!

[this part is my opinion, disregard if you disagree] Music turned ugly. It went from meaningful art created one off, by the artists themselves, straight to celebrity fame, gaudy fortune, ass and tit shaking, commercial trash. Are there exceptions to this rule? For the love of God, YES! But, come on... Britney Spears?

Anyway. For a few decades music became a massively profitable industry. Handed to the labels by techological advancements. But now. The very same technology that gave musicians and their "masters" an unfair advantage has advanced once again and taken that cash cow away.

And I can't help but say... boo... fucking... hoo.

Welcome back to the rest of the world, where hard working people turn one kind of material into another, or provide a service for money, and are limited by the constraints of how much time is in a day, and how much the original materials cost. It may have been fun while it lasted, but I am not going to cry that you're losing it.

Xolox? Ummm

[Anenga]

I don't understand why they added Xolox. Nobody uses Xolox anymore. It's infested with spyware and it's GUI sucks. It is also very behind in Gnutella technologies (I think it only recently added Ultrapeers, yikes). I don't think MP3Newswire is too informed in P2P because they should of at least listed Shareaza which has been hailed as the leader of the "new Gnutella" (Shareaza's Gnutella2, noteably). Frankly, Shareaza is currently the most advanced and best looking P2P client out there.

Oh well, maybe next year.