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
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 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.