Cringely Tries Snapster 2.0

I think this would be an awesome system by dtolton · 2003-08-01 05:26 · Score: 2, Interesting

I really like the second version he's come up with. I think the first version was just way too risky legally. This version sounds really solid though IMO.

I would love to see this cross-apply to different industries as well. Essentially it's just a digital library. I can't imagine why it wouldn't be legal to operate snapster 2.0.

I for one would join for certain.

--

Doug Tolton

"The destruction of a value which is, will not bring value to that which isn't." -John Galt

Mutual ownship like in funds by scharkalvin · 2003-08-01 05:29 · Score: 4, Interesting

He almost has it there. Maybe more like the system that Lloyd's of London has where the members of Lloyds are responsible for the loses of the company is more like it.

Re:Mutual ownship like in funds by Timesprout · 2003-08-01 05:43 · Score: 4, Interesting

Yes but even in Lloyds the system was very dodgy with some groups of members bearing far more liability risk than others by being at the wrong end of an insurance chain. One of the reasons they switched to Limited liability I believe.

--
Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
What truth?
There is no dupe

Maybe we should have Netflix for CDs instead by daveo0331 · 2003-08-01 05:29 · Score: 5, Interesting

Snapster sounds like a good idea, but the RIAA lawyers will fight it tooth and nail, which would be a problem regardless of whose side the law is actually on... a netflix for CDs would be much the same, except there would be higher distribution costs (offset by lower legal bills). Of course, they would have to make it clear that you shouldn't rent a CD and then rip it to MP3 before sending it back (wink wink).

--
Remember the days when Republicans were the party of fiscal responsibility?

Re:Maybe we should have Netflix for CDs instead by cavemanf16 · 2003-08-01 06:00 · Score: 5, Interesting

Netflix, along with CleanFlix and the like are stupid distribution methods though. We've got digital media, we're GETTING to full broadband (very slowly, but surely) so why not use it? Why waste the gas, time, and annoyances of going to Blockbuster to physically rent a copy of the latest DVD, when I *could* just download a paid for copy of it? Don't even make it copy-protected. The RIAA and MPAA have their lapdogs scouring the net for illegally copied DVD's anyways, why not just nail every person that does that kind of file-trading illegally, but at the same time provide fully copied DVD's via a digital medium? Cut out the middleman (Blockbuster, Hollywood Video, etc)!!

Why the RIAA and MPAA would waste $1.50 on shipping each of those DVD's, CD's, etc. to BestBuy when they could simply be shooting them to me via the internet for $1.00 less (netting them an extra $0.50 per unit) is beyond my comprehension!

Sure, the "brick-and-mortar" stores will always be needed for when we need to go "browsing" for something to buy, but the Internet was supposed to revolutionize the way we do business and all, not simply add to the old ways. Maybe lawmakers will get thrown out of office enough times for supporting such mega-organizations like the RIAA and MPAA that things will change, but I doubt it.
Re:Maybe we should have Netflix for CDs instead by tapin · 2003-08-01 06:27 · Score: 4, Interesting

Netflix, along with CleanFlix and the like are stupid distribution methods though.
That's an interesting observation, given that Netflix has shown a profit and most of the broadband movie delivery services haven't.
Judging from the rest of your post, you're conflating the MPAA and its member organizations. They don't actually do any distribution themselves. And as for the reason why they (assuming the member organizations) don't just "shoot[] them to you via the internet for $1.00 less", you're ignoring the part where the "middleman" takes care of all the nasty details of actually dealing with customers, and removes that level of headache from the studios. There's a hell of a lot of infrastructure that would have to be built before you're going to see DVD data delivered via broadband.
And I would imagine nobody's even seriously considering it right now because it would take Mom & Pop more than a day to download over their 56k modem that they just broke down and bought last year so they could get The Internet on their Win98 box in the den. Then, once they've downloaded it, they would realize they either need to watch it on their 15" monitor, or go buy a DVD burner and get Sonny to hook that up as well so they can burn it -- and then go buy a DVD player, when they've already got a perfectly fine VCR.

Some Practical Problems by ifreakshow · 2003-08-01 05:34 · Score: 3, Interesting

His plan of locking physical access to the CD's has some practical problems. Let's say that you have 1,000,000 users. Let's suppose that each user has 2 cd/dvd rom drives they can put cd's in for access. That leaves us with 2,000,000 CDs peak. It seems like alot of CD's but how do you ensure that there aren't 2,000,000 Britney Spears CD's on the network instead of songs you'd actually want to hear.

Re:Some Practical Problems by pbox · 2003-08-01 05:58 · Score: 3, Interesting

I think you might have misunderstood Cringley. He still proposes that Snapster 2.0 purcheses physical CDs, before making them available.

It is not the members who make the CDs available, rather the mutual fund itself.

But that brings up another point, why would not the members mail in their CDs, for which they get download credits. this potentially will result in a giant collection of crapfest (aka Miz Spears), but it will address the general bad taste of public :-)

--
Code poet, espresso fiend, starter upper.
Re:Some Practical Problems by arkhan_jg · 2003-08-01 06:21 · Score: 3, Interesting

No, you've missed the point. The users report what CD's they own to the snapster 2 database. They don't need to physically lock their CD's at all.
In effect, the snapster central server counts up all the CD's input by users, plus the ones snapster owns directly. Then the server allows copies of the tracks that it has available by 'borrowing' the track from a physical CD held by a user.
But the accounting is done purely virtually. Presumably, the users inputting CD's would have to sign a waiver saying that they wouldn't use the CD's they input while logged onto the system. When they log off, their tracks drop out of the central server's list of ones available (just like p2p at the moment)
There's no defence to all the users just uploading britney spear's CD's; but of course, that problem exists for conventional p2p. What will be available most, will be the tracks that most people listen to. But conversely, although there will only be few copies of the work that is not popular, they will only be wanted by a few people, thus it will still work.
The biggest downside I see is the lack of incentive for people to keep the number of copies in the system in line with the ones being borrowed; i.e. a physical CD needs to exist every time someone downloads a track. and the number of copies cannot exceed the number of CDs.
So what happens when all the physical CD's have already been 'borrowed'? No more copies can be made until more physical CD's are bought, and the penny per track would hardly encourage people to do that! It'll work if tracks 'leak' out of the system and are no longer recorded as in use - which would be illegal; or if tracks are deleted centrally or by the user after a period of time, neither of which would be popular.
The reason P2P works is it allows one to many; i.e. a limited number of physical CD's to be cloned to many people, including leechers; it's a top heavy system.
The only way I can see snapster 2 working in real life is if :
a) it streams tracks, rather than allows downloads - which I still think would be classified as a broadcast, thus nailed under the RIAA's royalty charges for net radio;
b) people can only download a number of tracks equal to the number they've made available to the system, thus turning it into a giant 'swapshop' rather than P2P in the classic sense. And the music industry will hardly be hurt, as a physical CD will have bought for every track that's in use. About the only major use would be to easily listen to music you haven't already heard, without having to pay for it. A worthwhile goal, but hardly industry shaking.

--
Remember kids, it's all fun and games until someone commits wholesale galactic genocide.

My 4 yr old by SirLanse · 2003-08-01 05:37 · Score: 5, Interesting

If my 4 yr old wants to play the same song 50 times everyday for 2 weeks (week days only). Is that 500 plays at .05 per play = $25? That is the model the record companies want to have. Embed wireless DRM in everything, you have access to every song ever written for .05 each. Every time you play it.

This does not let you copy a disc by mendepie · 2003-08-01 05:40 · Score: 5, Interesting

While this may allow others to download and listen to a song, then listen to it then notify snapster that they are done with it so that copy of it can can be "freed up", it does not allow the downloader to make a copy of a song.

If this was not a streaming only service then
RIAA would argue that people are copying the songs, and thus violating the copyright, which is most likely what will be happening.

Another problem with is if I have a copy of a disc, and I register it with snapster so others can "borrow" it. If I dont get a notification that it is currently lent out I (or someone else) will be in violation if I listen to it. I can not belive that I will tell snapster every disc I bring into the car or play.

It's an intresting idea, but I dont think it will ever fly.

--

Are you paranoid if you know that they just want to know everything you say and do?

Re:This Is Nothing But Theft by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-01 05:41 · Score: 1, Interesting

the artists get next to nothing now with the existing system, so this isn't a detriment for them. the RIAA should get off it's high horse about they are key to the economy. a telecom has more revenue in a week than the music industry does for the year. the music industry does have a talent for turning no-talent clowns into celebrities, though. but we don't need any more of those.

Already exists... by rubinson · 2003-08-01 05:41 · Score: 1, Interesting

...it's called a library.

Re:Already exists... by L.+VeGas · 2003-08-01 05:56 · Score: 2, Interesting

I almost completely ignored this comment because there's always someone bringing up libraries when this type of discussion comes up.

But gee, you're exactly right. Behind a layer of mutual fund bullshit, he's described exactly what a library does. Why not just form a library instead of all this legal rigamarole?

--
Best Windows Freeware

change in "fair use" laws by 192939495969798999 · 2003-08-01 05:42 · Score: 2, Interesting

I wouldn't be surprised to see someone make this system, and then to see the RIAA use all of its immense financial resources to pressure Congress into changing the "fair use" laws so that it specifically says you personally have to own the CD to hear a song... so much for radio if that happens!

--
stuff |

Re:change in "fair use" laws by finkployd · 2003-08-01 06:16 · Score: 3, Interesting

Sure, but how many people can "own" a CD? Can my friend and I eatch pitch in and buy a CD, then both own it? Are we both entitled to fair use rights of this CD then?

Finkployd

Snapster 3.0 by CleverFox · 2003-08-01 05:50 · Score: 2, Interesting

My idea is start up an online music store where people buy physical CD's. Once they buy the CD, they can also download the MP3 files associated with it, which is legally within their rights as new owners of the CD. The physical CD won't ship for 72 hours, so they have 72 hours to cancel their order. Then charge a 10% restocking fee if they cancel within the 72 hours, and request they delete any downloaded mp3's. Of course no one will delete the mp3's, so effectively they will have bought mp3's to the CD for 10% of the physical CD cost. And it is all legal. Even if the record companies choose to not sell them additional albums, they could buy them from individuals and sell them. A couple of CD's should last a while as long as people are canceling within the 72 hour period.

Fox

just watch out for the sharks ... I mean lawyers. by McFly777 · 2003-08-01 05:57 · Score: 3, Interesting

The method presented in the second article (only allowing one check out at a time) is what I thought Cringely meant when I read the first article.

I don't see why it shouldn't work, after all Apple is paving the way for electronic music distribution, as a store. Now we just have to implement the electronic library.

It could be as simple as time stamping an expiration time in the file. Of course you would need a plug-in for various players (winamp, etc) to "enforce" the time stamp. If you get two requests simultaneously one has to wait the three minutes until the first stamp has expired and then fire off the file to the next listener. If you get more than some set number of people in the queue, creating too long of a wait, the server could be set to place an order for another hard copy of the disk.

This would create the problem of winding up with 50 copies of the latest #1 chart hit, but in a few weeks, when the online demand has ebbed, you could resell the "used" disks to people who want to buy them at a lower price. (A good deal for the buyer as the "used" disk would probably still be in the wrapper!)

The biggest problem would probably be the necessity to keep detailed logs of what was distributed and when, so that when (not if!) you are dragged into court by the RIAA you could prove that you had purchased a physical disk for every concurrent user.

--

McFly777
- - -
"What do people mean when they say the computer went down on them?" -Marilyn Pittman

Actually, Snapster 2.0 less liable than Netflix by rmm4pi8 · 2003-08-01 05:59 · Score: 5, Interesting

"NetCDs" would actually be more open to liability than Snapster 2.0. the NetCDs type system would be open to the charge that it facilitates copying, since many (most) users would in fact rip the CDs to their HDDs. the Snapster 2.0 model, however, avoids this by using a streaming approach, ala Songster which is clearly legal. As long as every copy being streamed is only being streamed to one client at a time, and the technology can actually enforce this, Snapster would merely be doing what Songster is, but buying the rights to music by buying actual CDs rather than direct rights from the RIAA.

Of course the eventual downfall of this system is that either CSS-like encryption is used or CDs become software programs that play music, and the EULA indicates that Snapster 2.0 is an unpermitted use.

--
U.S. War Crimes blog. Email for free Mandriva support.

It's a subscription service with small fees by ScottyB · 2003-08-01 06:01 · Score: 2, Interesting

First, I think Snapster 2.0 might appeal as a middle-road of the services out there. The most profitable target audience would be users who listen to lots of music but not for a long time (e.g., to try out new bands or following fads).

But this is really not much more than a combination of the two types of services already out there (but a co-op model instead of top-down). In one corner are monthly-subscription services that offer a limited number of downloads. In the other, iTMS which charges per download, and then it's yours.

Snapster 2.0 instead has a subscription fee (share purchase) which determines how many CDs (or number of songs) you can keep out at a time. Then, each download costs a small amount of money to cover bandwidth and other expenses. You'd need to have some sort of protection to keep from CDs being locked up forever from users who pay once and then don't use the CD for a while, which would keep others from using it.

The physical-distribution record companies would fight hard, too. It would be only a matter of time before Snapster 2.0 would contract directly with artists and become another record company.

And, only music that is popular would really benefit since niche groups would only get a CD or two in licenses purchased.

Finally, how would you go about deciding which new licenses to purchase? If all CDs are taken, purchase another when requested? Since you ultimately cannot return the original purchase to the artist, this would end up losing money.

Somehow you would have to buy a new album only for each new share, but it might be difficult to decide which to buy. This would mean a critical mass of initial shareholders would have to join to make the library large enough to attract further shareholders.

I think I'd invest in it, but not my life savings.

Re:I'll be surprised... by kmak · 2003-08-01 06:05 · Score: 2, Interesting

Sure, fair use is fair use, but have you read the article about how he's using it? It really is anything but, as much as we hate RIAA...

--

I'm not the devil.. just his advocate.

there is a better way by jorr · 2003-08-01 06:07 · Score: 2, Interesting

A download system that benefits the artists more via micropayments, and I mean less than the $1 or so AppleTunes charges, can end this nonsense about getting around RIAA and so on. Anyone not willing to pay no more and probably less than $0.50 for a single is a jerk who probably deserves to have their hard drive invaded.

Of course this would not apply to recordings to artists currently under contract, but so be it. (Those contracted artists who complain about losing money are idiots. They signed that opportunity away long and should shut up).

Ideas like Cringely's sound good on the surface but seem to be nothing more than instigating rock throwing fights with the RIAA and other idiots (politicians, some artists, etc) who share their philosophy. Let's move forward.

It could work in Canada. by Pig+Hogger · 2003-08-01 06:14 · Score: 3, Interesting

Many libraries lend CDs to subscribers.

Since they are "real tangible" things, like books, only 1 subscriber can borrow a CD at a time.

So let's automatize the lending process: only one subscriber can lend a MP3 at a time; at that time, the MP3 becomes locked. It's only when he checks it back that it is unlocked and someone else can borrow it out.

What he does with the MP3 when he has it his is own business (and in Canada, making a copy for your own private use is LEGAL - that's how I made my own MP3 collection).

Of course, if some americans would borrow MP3s, and it's illegal for them to copy them in the US, well, that's a problem for the US, no? And given how the US/Canadian networks are intermingled, you can't be sure packets won't go through the US. As a matter of fact, to go to my library, eight blocks from my home, packets go through New-York City:

traceroute www2.ville.montreal.qc.ca traceroute to montrealweb.ville.montreal.qc.ca (65.39.219.34), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets 1 Montreal-HSE-pppxxxx.sympatico.ca (65.95.xx.xx) 7.259 ms 7.217 ms 7.52 ms 2 dis4-montrealak-Vlan200.in.bellnexxia.net (64.230.237.130) 7.986 ms 7.829 ms 7.497 ms 3 core1-montrealak-Gigabite2-1.in.bellnexxia.net (64.230.240.61) 7.525 ms 8.529 ms 7.509 ms 4 core1-newyork83-pos1-2.in.bellnexxia.net (64.230.240.78) 15.416 ms 16.171 ms 15.896 ms 5 HSE-Sherbrooke-ppp98979.qc.sympatico.ca (64.230.223.118) 16.103 ms 16.248 ms 16.18 ms 6 208.50.13.129 (208.50.13.129) 17.011 ms 15.065 ms 15.398 ms 7 pos2-0-2488M.cr1.NYC1.gblx.net (67.17.64.145) 15.663 ms 15.865 ms 15.641 ms 8 pos0-0-2488M.cr1.JFK1.gblx.net (64.214.65.162) 15.161 ms 15.854 ms 15.653 ms 9 so0-0-0-2488M.ar1.JFK1.gblx.net (64.214.65.198) 16.12 ms so3-0-0-2488M.ar1.JFK1.gblx.net (64.214.65.202) 15.865 ms 15.664 ms 10 Peer-1.so-2-0-0.ar1.JFK1.gblx.net (67.17.161.118) 17.287 ms 17.566 ms 17.64 ms 11 OC48POS3-0.mtl-core-a.peer1.net (216.187.123.233) 25.005 ms 24.602 ms 26.489 ms 12 Gig5-0.mtl-gsr-a.peer1.net (216.187.90.6) 26.721 ms 25.644 ms 25.271 ms 13 65.39.219.252 (65.39.219.252) 26.458 ms 26.752 ms 26.453 ms

So, this clearly shows that the system is definitely b0rk3n, and that scheme could really force a redesign of the whole IP hoopla...

Really obvious problem by no_opinion · 2003-08-01 06:19 · Score: 1, Interesting

This idea is stupid. He clearly does not understand how music is consumed. Sales of a CD normally peak right after initial release when lots of people want to listen to the album. Over time, people start listening to other things and the amount of time they spend listening to the album slowly tapers off. In order for this system to work, you'd have to buy hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of copies of hit albums to satisfy the desire of everyone who wants to listen at the same time.

Independent of that, I don't think a single artist would support this. Some artists do make lots of money from CD sales, and even those who don't are not going to be willing to give up their royalties.

This is just another example of someone who knows nothing about the industry (or the law, as he has admitted) commenting on a problem he does not understand. Of course, this *is* slashdot :-)

I see a hole... by terradyn · 2003-08-01 06:34 · Score: 1, Interesting

i just figured out a flaw to this system for any types of item cd/dvd/software... given that you are giving up ownership of your cd to another party, what's the stop a member of the RIAA/MPAA/individual/etc to just collect on their ownership rights to the item in question. They could pay whatever nominal fee is associated with this system and then just request everything and decide not to share it back out. Given that in order for this system to be legal, full ownership must be transferred to the current user, they should be within their rights to force you to give back "their" cd.

Already been done, kinda by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-01 06:34 · Score: 3, Interesting

This model sounds very much like that of something another company is doing.

Console Classix is providing a similar service in the emulation industry. They have a physical repository of old Atari2600, Sega Genesis, NES and SNES cartridges. All of these carts have been digitally imaged into a server. By logging into their server you can "check out" a particular cartridge and play it using their client client software. The central server locks that cartridge so no one else can play it at that time. When you close the client software the central server releases the locked cart for someone else to play.

So far they have caught the attention of Nintendo of America Inc. but NOA has not pursued any sort of Cease and Desist or any other legal manuvers.

Addition to Cringely's thoughts by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-01 06:34 · Score: 2, Interesting

I like Cringely's idea, but I would propose that, as part of the start-up capital, the mutual fund should hire a few well-known groups to each put out a CD in order to start sales off with something the RIAA can't fight legally. This way, if the RIAA comes up with some sort of miraculous legal victory, Snapster could work towards luring away the artists, thereby crippling the RIAA. If they could make $1.50 on a $3 CD, odds are the RIAA would lose enough musicians that they would either go out of business, or lose enough power in the music market to make things competitive once again.

check out my journal everyone and comment by HanzoSan · 2003-08-01 06:39 · Score: 3, Interesting

I'd like comments on my idea, everyone please check out my journal,http://slashdot.org/journal.pl?op=display I'll also post my idea now.

Please review it and find its flaws.
The solution for musicians and music fans is for us to become the distributors of music legally.

How?

We replace the RIAA and distribute music via P2P systems.

The solution is a P2P system which intergrates into the web, there also needs to be a payment mechanism, (maybe paypal?)

Users buy credits in this system, credits represent dollars and cents. So how do you get into the system? You buy in by buying music from fans who are already in the system.

Say you are an indie musician, you make a bunch of music and you create a website, you then intergrate this system onto your website, allowing people to download off a certain P2P network via your site, almost like magnet links. The person who downloads from your site pays .50 cent per mp3 download, however the mp3 isnt downloaded from the musicians site, the mp3 is downloaded from the distrinbutor which happens to be a person who previously paid their way into the system by buying an mp3.

So the fans take the place of the RIAA as distributor and take 25 cent of the 50 cent, so the musician gets 25 cent and the fan gets 25cent or 25 credits. When the fan gets 50 credits they can then go buy another song, so its a system which allows you the filesharer to get unlimited access to music (Free Music) because you become distributor, you legally pay the musician for the music so the musician is happy.You may even make a bit of money. Everyone Wins.

Consumer/Downloader --> $ = $ --> Distributor&Creator , Consumers = Distributors & Downloaders. A closed system where we are the distributors, the creators, the owners of the intellectual property, and we get paid while having access to unlimited free music.

You get free music as long as you share. Musicians get paid. New people have to pay their way into the system but once they do, they get free music or money, whichever they choose.

If we can put the RIAA out of business, alot of the famous musicians which everyone likes would agree to such a setup.

What do you think?

I think its better than snapster because there is no central company involved.

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

Nibbles and bits sans sad periodic table humor. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-08-01 06:43 · Score: 1, Interesting

Better yet, why can't you just chop up the digital media into convienent byte size chunks and float a version of multicast underwhich the clients help certify that the same byte isn't played at the same time by different clients. Combine that with a p2p database, and player that helps find more stuff one likes based on past stuff one lilked, and allows a person to add their media to the digital collection by agreeing to let the system lock them out when in use by other users, customizing how much can be "checked out" from them at any one time.

Like sharing different pages of the same song with different friends, only at (potentially) superluminal speeds. Just in time network deliveries don't seem *that* far fetched to me.

Oh, I was going to make a joke about how a 100 Manganese users wouldn't be as good as a single mega-user, but then I realized it was unfunny and kind of pathetic.

Re:Watch the CleanFlicks case by MacMoov · 2003-08-01 06:47 · Score: 4, Interesting

I also wonder how the RIAA would feel about edited versions of music as well.

I have a collection of >5,000 CD's (I'm an ex-DJ and confirmed music junky.) Many of my CD's are the Parental Advisory (PA) versions of the CD. There are many times that I need the clean version (radio edits) of popular songs (i.e. at work or driving in the car with my 7 yr old daughter.)

I have used various p2p applications to download the clean versions of various popular songs I already own and have never felt guilty that I was stealing music from the artist or label.

I know they prefer that own both the Clean and PA version of a specific song, but I'm not going to pay double the price just so I can keep it clean when I need to.

Re:Music library by cc2003 · 2003-08-01 06:54 · Score: 2, Interesting

More to point:
What's to stop someone from creating an internet based CD library.

Operations would work similar to NetFlicks, except rather than having a centeralized depot where CDs and DVDs are mailed to and fro; the mailings are done individual to individual.

So Music Library basically keeps: Info about album ownership, where the album is physically located, and how many albums people have out, and escrowed $$$ (more on this later).

So assume I own a copy of "XYZ Album."

1) I notify the "Music Library" that I have a copy to lend.
2) Five people want to listen to it, so they notify music library and queue up.
3) I mail the album to person1, notify "Music Library"
4) person1 receives the album, notify "Music Library"
5) When person1 is done listening to the album, s/he mails it to person2 ... and so on.

So where are the risks?

a) Individuals might not send/return albums as required.

Basically: Don't lend what you don't want to lose.
Secondly: If you really want something ASAP you can always go out to your local record-mart and buy it.

Secondly: Individual that wants to borrow the CD put money into an escrow account that "Music Library" holds in the user's name.

So, I have XYZ Album, person1 wants to borrow it. Person1 puts money into escrow/deposit (basically replacement cost for XYZ). Person1 listens to and enjoys the music; and when they're finished they ship it off to Person2. When person2 reports Recepit of the album -- Person1's funds are "unlocked" out of escrow.

There's an interesting side effect to this as well. If a borrow decides they really want to purchase this CD they can do by notifiying Music Library. They money then flows out to the individual that owns the album.

This might even serve as a pathway for simplifying the structure further. Rather than "borrow" the album, individuals in the chain are temporarily owning the album and "reselling it" to the next person in the queue.

b) Poor content

The major issue would be that the vast majority of people probably wouldn't want to lend their stuff; or the stuff that would be rented would be stuff no-one wants to listen to (ie. Bruce Willis' Return of Bruno).

One way around this would be to require an initial setup fee from individuals which the Library would use to acquire new works that the subscribers want on --- much like how a museum or private library works.

Another would be to work with -real- libraries and borrow their works.

Thoughts?

Subscription Libraries and other cats to skin... by podperson · 2003-08-01 07:05 · Score: 4, Interesting

Snapster 2.0 is a subscription library (which is perfectly legal and which has existed for hundreds of years). The technical details are all but irrelevant.

The real question is:

Should a right that no longer makes sense be perpetuated at great cost to society? Before recording equipment there was no recording industry. If you wanted music you played it yourself or hired a musician.

Today, recording and duplicating stuff is trivial but we want to create complicated laws and technologies in order to force ourselves into a virtual past where recording and duplication were expensive. This seems stupid (as in both wrong and ultimately ineffectual) to me.

It seems stupid to me that it's even legal to sell DVDs that can be legally purchased in Europe and then not be played in the USA (and vice versa), especially when the technology has intentionally been crippled (it's not like the PAL/NTSC incompatibility we have with video tape).

In theory, when you photocopy a book you are infringing copyright. But "fair use" means that if you don't do it with bad intentions or on an industrial scale, you don't go to jail. In practice, the main reason that people don't photocopy expensive books instead of buying them is that the copies are ugly and inferior. Likewise, avid fans of star trek prefer DVDs to home made video recordings with ads and poor reception etc. When the copies are sufficiently perfect and cheap, the market will ignore copyright, as well it should!

In theory, I probably "own" the air around my house. Exerting any ownership rights is essentially pointless, arguing that my trees are converting my neighbour's carbon dioxide into oxygen that her large family and pets are consuming is similarly pointless. But sometimes residents band together to stop large companies building factories, or creating pollution standards for cars.

Economists -- should any read Slashdot -- will point out that I'm confusing a "commons" (the air) with a "public good" (Intellectual Property). But Economists would also note that IP should, theoretically be FREE and that patents and copyrights are a kludge to encourage people to produce IP and publish it in exchange for a temporary and limited monopoly.

When companies are able to perpetuate their copyrights (e.g. the way Disney can remaster the audio in Snow White and extend copyright for 75 more years having NEVER provided the public with a master copy of the original version to duplicate once copyright on that version expired) the system has failed and needs to be fixed. Fortunately, digital copying gives us a de-facto fix for this big problem and we should resist any attempts to subvert it by making it more complex and expensive than it needs to be.

I would argue that intellectual property is in the process of moving from being "like a manufactured good" to being "like the air". The law needs to move from managing trivial transactions (e.g. do I own more Nelly CDs than I play simultaneously) to large scale infractions (e.g. SPAM is large scale pollution and abuse of the internet and it's reasonable to regulate it).

We can argue all we like about how to micromanage the collapse of intellectual property as we know it, or instead we can start planning for what the world is really going to be like down the track. We never figured out fair or intelligent systems for dealing with the threat to IP posed by VHS, compact audio cassettes, or photocopying. We got over it.

Re:Closer but still not practical by Kwil · 2003-08-01 07:46 · Score: 3, Interesting

And, this all completely ignores the problem of enforcement -- how do you:

prevent someone from checking out a track indefinitely
prevent someone from keeping a track after checking it back in
prevent someone from otherwise using a single check-out for multiple instances
prevent the physical owner from listening to their "donated" CDs that are currently "borrowed" (thus violating the "one copy per use" doctrine)

Good question. One solution: Instead of a flat fee, use an auction system. .05 + bid. If your bid > the current users bid (minimum increments of .05) you get the track (as soon as they're not using it), they get their bid amount back, and the extra goes into the fund to purchase more of that CD. If you return the CD, you get your bid amount back. This could of course lead to a bidding war, but with all the extras being thrown into the pool, it won't be long before the fund can afford to purchase a second copy of that CD, thus ending the war. You could even use bids as a queuing system.
DRM baby. This whole scheme is predicated on solid DRM
DRM baby. This whole scheme is predicated on solid DRM
If you'll note, Snapster requires the rights (which for CDs I guess means the physical media.. the RIAA still isn't clear on that) for each song that it has. So you can't just "donate" your tracks, you'd have to send in your physical CD. However, the system is more designed for the fund to go out and actually purchase the music.

--

That Jesus Christ guy is getting some terrible lag... it took him 3 days to respawn! -NJ CoolBreeze

Re:And whats wrong with the model? by shpoffo · 2003-08-01 12:02 · Score: 2, Interesting

What could make sense is to have musicians set up affiliate programs (like Amazon) that pay the fan a commission if a link on a fan's site leads to a sale.

How is that different than what the original poster proposed. The musician pays a commision of 50 cents to the 'referrer' - the only difference is that the downloader gets the music from the 'referrer' directly. This would save the musician on hosting costs - something they may be rather keen on.

it coudl be implemented both ways. Higher commissions could be paid when the 'referrer' themselves serves the content. If the musician preferred, any downloads requests to the 'referrer' could use them truely as a referrer, pointing the downloader back to the musicians source content. Perhaps the referrer in that case would only receive a 15 cent commision, etc.

In short - I like it. It also allows us to hook up our friends. The individual user can also be a marketer as well as distributor. Where do I sign on?

-shpoffo

Statistical multiplexing by Stuntmonkey · 2003-08-01 12:23 · Score: 2, Interesting

This idea amounts to statistical multiplexing, where you get the most efficient use of a fixed resource (in this case CDs) by pooling consumer demand for that resource. An IP router works this way to manage demand for bandwidth.

Statistical multiplexing has real value when the average consumer demands far less than the entire resource. If you play a typical CD in your collection for an hour per week, then that CD is being wasted for the other 167 hours it's sitting on the shelf unused. The idea is to share this single CD with 167 other friends and thereby distribute the costs. (The real answer is somewhat less than 167 in order to decrease the likelihood of collisions when trying to access the resource -- "buffer overflow" in the router analogy.) Interestingly the method is most valuable when applied to the music that you play the least.

When applied to a large number of subscribers (large meaning much larger than the number of distinct CDs in release), the economics are very attractive. If the average subscriber listens to music 10% of the time, then the per-subscriber cost of purchasing the entire central CD repository is only 10% the cost of a single CD!

One challenge would be convincing the court that the technology really does limit the number of simultaneous listeners, and that there's no way to spoof it (this killed mp3.com). At a minimum you'd need a persistent net connection to request/release control of CDs as you play them. I could see a scenario where you purchase the music that you don't want to be chained to the net to listen to (e.g., in your iPod), and you listen to the rest through the service.

35 of 328 comments (clear)