Slashdot Mirror
Will Legal P2P Music Distribution Succeed?
SnowWolf2003 writes "It looks like a couple of people are trying to find a way to distribute music legally over P2P networks. The latest is Mercora (with more information here). Also Napster 2.0 is due for release sometime next week. Can any of these Windows alternatives to Apple's iTunes compete though with the inherent restrictions built into the wma format? Note MusicMatch has just launched a windows based service with fewer restrictions equivalent to the iTunes policy. More importantly, can these P2P services lure enough people away from restriction free Kazaa to make themselves successful, where P2P networks rely on a large user base?"
I use EMusic.com. It's reasonably priced, and download rates are awesome. If a similar service were offered for more mainstream music, I'm sure it would succeed, especially when you take out the P2P problem of just hoping somebody with a good connection and a low queue and has the song you want just happens to be connected at the same times you are.
Unpleasantries.
- Reliance : if you can have reliable services (constant file disponibility, etc)
- Quality : high bitrate, good encoding
- Extra services : Album covers, lyrics, bonuses, videos; "If you liked X, why don't you check Y" links between different types of music and bands
- Wide range of music : propose almost all the existing music, from indie bands to classical music, including live shows, etc
- Artist friendly : show you are not Evil, people will like it and support you
- No DRM or alike: hard, but I certainly won't ever buy music if the format is closed or "DRM-controlled"
etc.
The Internet has the technical potential to be The Ultimate Media network distribution. People could promote their bands with it, etc.
We just need people to work on a clean, honest distribution schema and create such a company. This is not gonna be the easy part.
theefer
Make an "album." Give two cuts away on your website under an open license as a demo. Kind of like a brouchure. Encourage people to pass them around as much as they'd like, however they'd like.
You're not putting them into the public domain. You retain your authorship rights. Just allow free distribution for noncommercial use.
If they like them people will find your website no matter how they came by the cuts. Google is a wonder and a mystery.
Sell 'em the rest of the album at five bucks a pop. This way you avoid the whole micropayment nonsense and it's worth dealing with your own merchant account (assuming you can get one for web sales, of course).
If your stuff is any good it will drive people to you just as surely as airplay drives people into the record stores; and since you're giving stuff away for free and not charging extortionate rates for a download file people will be less inclined to "cheat" the good guy.
Then don't sweat the people who cheat. They aren't your customers anyway. A dime you'll never see in the first place isn't a dime lost. Isn't that part of what we're trying to convince the RIAA of in the first place?
A penny saved is a penny earned. Unless you're being penny wise and pound foolish.
KFG
I know inherently what I've just said is wrong, but hear me out.
The target market of the above services are more or less ignorant that the product they are consuming has to be paid for by someone. When I turn on the radio do I have to think about paying for it? No. When I turn on the TV? Well, not most of the time, okay there's cable and/or satellite, but I could just use an antenna, and I usually don't think about having to pay for a specific show and with radio I don't have to think about paying for a specific song.
I think this was more true when Napster was out, and maybe it is now, but people generally don't want to have to pay for music. Not because they can't, but because they don't feel they should have to. They view the distribution service as something that is free, just like TV and Radio. Most people don't notice or realize that TV and Radio are paid for by adv. spots. Thus the reason these DVR's are getting into so much hot water.
I tend to fall along those lines as well. Yes, the music needs to be paid for somehow, and iTunes is reasonable in it's methodology, but even iTunes is a step backwards from Napster.
Not saying I have the right answer, but I really feel that's the predicament we're in. Napster more or less got it right the first time, and had they not been shut down they would have a monopoloy on P2P right now, and no one would have given Kazaa a second thought unless Nap started doing something stupid like bundling in Spyware...oh wait, that doesn't stop people.
Karma: Chameleon (mostly due to the fact that you come and go).
There's no restrictions built into WMA (aside from the lack of source/format documentation). Just like there's no restrictions built into AAC. Apple, like Microsoft, have built DRM on top of their formats, but unlike Apple, Microsoft are providing the SDK for DRM freely. If you examine the options available with the SDK you can make the rules as loose as you like, more "free" than iTunes have, it's just no-one seems to want to do this.
Is accuracy too much to ask for?
I think the point of having a P2P network would be to get music known, not save costs. Sure, your homepage might be nice if you get someone there, but what you need is promotion. Why do you think so many independents want to join the iTMS?
A good legal P2P network could provide much the same, without requiring the huge central that iTMS is. With digital signing, the quality of the files would be guranteed. The one thing missing though is incentive for consumers to use their bandwidth to run "someone else's" net.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
There is also a measure of self-interest in that. If I enjoy Band X's music, I am going to naturally want MORE of their music. If no money is reaching them, they won't be able to continue making music, and *I* lose out. One need only watch 'Amadeus' to understand that principle. (how much richer would our musical history be if the Emperor hadn't stiffed Mozart?)
The rampant piracy isn't caused by people being evil, immoral cheapskates - it's caused by consumer perceptions of value being greatly reduced. Most people know - on some level or another - that CD prices are wildly inflated. That the record labels use radio and advertising to trick people into buying CDs that aren't very good. That the RIAA does everything they can to NOT pass money onto the artists. Outside of those who've been completely deluded by RIAA propaganda into believing Fair Use rights don't exist, most people are at least vaguely aware of this.
People know music should be FAR cheaper. Most people (not your hardened l33t d00d w4r3zRz) feel at least a vauge twinge of conscience when they download music they really like without paying for it. (as opposed to 'trying out' bands in search of good stuff) And most would be willing to pay if A)the price was more in line with their current perception of its value, and B)they knew the money was going to support artists and not bloated mega-corps.
(I've been chatting with the guy who runs Magnatunes, he says the purchasing response to his site has been great.)
I got bored one day and worked out a model of how the RIAA could offer unlimited-download licenses for $20 per month (using the existing P2P services as the point of purchase), and still increase their profits greatly. It sounds completely counter-intuitive, that they could profit by allowing people unlimited downloads for the price of one CD, but it all worked out. I was estimating billions more in profits in the US alone. (and secondary benefits spread all around that benefitted *every*) And contrary to your overly slanted take on the situation, I firmly believe that if you told someone "For $20 a month, you can legally download all the music you want, paying the labels and artists," most people of sufficient means WOULD take up that offer.
Music doesn't want to be FREE. It just wants to be a lot CHEAPER.
Bush: He's Liberal in all the wrong ways.
Selling music online, if done properly (iTunes without DRM, or eMusic with mainstream music) has great potential, because it can offer great value. You (would) have the convenience of files in the format of your choice. You could listen to them on the computer, in the car, in your home, on your portable player, or however else you want. You get the warm fuzzy feeling of helping the artist, and of knowing that you won't be sued. You don't have to go through the hastle of ripping CDs. You would get album art, accurate track names, and high quality rips. You'd have a wide selection, it would be quick and easy to buy music. Parents could give their kids a music budget. Few would download illegally, because it wouldn't be worth dealing with the shortcomings of P2P networks. The economies of scale are more than enough to make the artists rich. This is the potential of online music sales.
The music industry doesn't see this yet. DRM isn't helping them. As long as there are CDs, as long as iTunes lets you rip CDs, as long as there analog speakers, and as long as sound is transmitted through vibrating air instead of through an encrypted channel directly into a cochlear implant or nerve graft, DRM does not hinder piracy! DRM cannot have the convenience of unencumbered music: it won't be cross-platform, players will be expensive, there will be the chance of losing the music, the system will be centralized, and music won't have the tangibility and concreteness of a file. DRM, for me anyway, will always kill the sale. Others aren't so idealistic, but the inconvenience won't help. DRM actively drives people to illegally download music from P2P networks. The sooner the industry realizes this, the better off they'll be.
Two paths to sanity: First, the industry might pull it's head out of the sand, give us a non-DRM cross-platform multi-format iTunes-alike, and reap the rewards. Second, the amplified marketing power of the internet might let eMusic or similar services become so popular that indie music could supplant the mainstream. These are interesting times.
Litigious bastards