Slashdot Mirror
Shawn Fanning Is Back Into Digital Music
prostoalex writes "News.com has a lengthy 3-page article on Shawn Fanning's new venture, Snocap. After years of development the company is coming out of the stealth mode and has apparently already secured a distribution deal with Universal Music, promising to turn file-sharers into loyal paying customers overnight. Both News.com and Associated Press are skimpy on the details, but apparently Snocap will market the technology that will (a) sniff out the files shared illegally and (b) fill the peer-to-peer networks with licensed content and serve as a clearing house for the ventures who want to license digital music, but don't want to deal with gazillion of music labels." (We mentioned Snocap last in January.)
Why would I bother with this when I already have an alternative that is free of charge, more secure, and has more content?
promising to turn file-sharers into loyal paying customers overnight.
Hasn't this already happened??
-Teiresias
Material that is available for legal distribution is just too boring to attract subscribers, at least currently. (Musically that is, so Project Goethenberg aside)
Meine Schwester ist sehr, sehr reizvoll - Nietzsche
"promising to turn file-sharers into loyal paying customers overnight"
Other side-projects include:
Turning lead into gold. (codenamed "sorceror's" stone, for american market)
Project "elixir"; granting licensees eternal life.
Research into rocket powering pigs, and hell-proof cats.
What if they force the Internet provider to wipe any file that is not signed by them and thus prevent these p2p networks to be used for Free contents ?
As a provider of such files, I think I'd have a problem because I want my Free files to circulate freely so they'd better have a good sniffer.
Trolling using another account since 2005.
It seeks out and find illegal music, and then it fills the P2P networks with legal music.
excuse me, but isn't sharing legal music still illegal? If not, then I got like 350 cd's everyone can have a copy of... come and get it!
If I wrote something witty, you would say I stole it from somewhere.
Is it in WMA format? I read the article quickly and didn't see anything stating the format. But anyway, I refuse to pay for a WMA... or an MP3, even. Especially when there's DRM involved. There's no way I'm going to pay for a lossy Microsoft format.
Happy New Year, it's 1984!
What else are they offering besides Shawn's name? That won't be enough when stacked up against ITunes and other competitors. There has to be a real consumer value. The percentage of their desired customer base that has heard of Shawn is less than 1%. An even smaller percentage care if Shawn is involved or not.
1: Identify illegal music downloads.
2: ???
3: Profit
God spoke to me.
FTA:Record executives say they are also interested in a feature that will track peer-to-peer requests for songs that aren't yet licensed for digital distribution.
Just release a single titled "Teen sex anime barnyard hack crack lolita".
Snocap will market the technology that will (a) sniff out the files shared illegally and (b) fill the peer-to-peer networks with licensed content and
.COMers to have investors escape reality.
California crack must be pretty good these days as it still allows
The reality is CDs need to be priced at $2.50, $4.00 if it is good and new.
Consumers are rebeling at paying $15 for a BTO or Abba that costs the media producers nothing to produce. Plus, many already owned the wax versions.
The media induatry is slowly screwing itself.
Now lets support fiber optics to a country that will put real content on the web, let the adverisers pay for it and open up WebTV for real so I can loose my cable company forever. This country has to have no time for the lawyers and stupid monopolistic legislation.
No, that would be far too logical. Better to charge the consumer for a new copy in whatever medium is in vogue, and then prosecute the people who try to (justifiably) download all the old songs they have on cassette or acetate 78 RPM record.
I'm just saying we should clear the slate. If it's all about having a license, then let it be about that. But I think I'm owed a few credits for every album I've purchased more than once.
Si la vida me da palo, yo la voy a soportar Si la vida me da palo, yo la voy a espabilar
Therefore every time you submit your MP3 TRM's to MusicBrainz, who in turn pass them onto relatable, his company can use that data to identify the songs on the P2P networks.
Far more accurate (although slower) than looking at the title of the files. Additionally, changing the metadata within the MP3 won't make a difference.
Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
Why would I bother with this when I already have an alternative that is free of charge, more secure, and has more content?
These people forget that the DRM'ed content is incompatible with my living room DVD player, my car CD player and my portable MP3 player.
I gathered from the article that a dealer could forward a copy and the reciepient could then buy it. It sounds like buying the DRM key to unlock it to me. My hardware can't use that content. Get a clue guys.. Use a universaly accepted standard.
This is as useful to me as if you came in to my store and only had Lyra and not dollars. I'd send you away to get it exchanged into something accepted here. DRM music has the same problem. I won't take it. I can't use it. Calling it music doesn't make it playable any more than calling Lyra in the US money makes it good for buying things here.
Just because I can use it somewhere doesn't make it universal in my location.
The truth shall set you free!
I think people are vastly missing the point here. (Surprise.)
The idea with Napster was that Fanning *always* said that he wanted to work with the music labels. The labels (and the RIAA) unfortunately hated his idea so they sued him out of existence. In my opinion, that was a mistake. The oldskool Napster would have been a fantastic method of tracking and eventually reimbursing labels, publishers and musicians. It was the first effective music distribution network. So no: he's never been "pimping himself out to both sides of the fence." The idea was that he always wanted Napster to become the leading legitimate online distribution method.
Snocap monitors the contents of files being traded on current P2P networks (they don't say who but we could guess) and then reports that information back to a central server to monitor how often a file (of any type) has been traded and downloaded. That data can then be turned into invoices and sent to ISP's and their customers.
With that information, he could then approach organizations like ASCAP or BMI, who already get similar information from BDI and other broadcast monitoring services, and use that information for charting purposes and for reimbursement to publishers. BDI charges for this service, and so could Snocap. Since file downloads are a mixture of a broadcast and an "owned goods" model, it's not being welcomed by the likes of ASCAP either but there are likely tons of other options in terms of billing / invoicing services for this kind of monitoring. Remember: This was *always* the plan for the original Napster.
You can be "sick of" hearing Shawn Fanning's name all the time but the bottom line is he did have a legitimate plan for Napster to begin with which was summarily shut down by the record labels (who it likely would have benefited immensely had they followed it through its course.)
I think Snocap is a potentially good idea for many reasons. Mostly because I do enjoy the current methodology of the numerous P2P products out there, and also because having worked in the industry, it takes a long time to get your hands on the kind of data which something like Snocap could provide. Snocap could inevitably replace Soundscan if it was proven to be both secure and reliable enough.
If Fanning didn't do this it's questionable just how long it would take for an existing music industry company to do so.
$0.02
ad
Because I can! [Brainrub.com]
Music is like porn. There is tons of free porn out there, but the porn business is still booming. When a person "consumes" pornographic media, their desire for more generally increases. I believe the same goes for music. My exposure to easy music downloads has only served to increase my general interest in music. I listen to more genres and artists now than I ever thought imaginable a few years ago. And I have paid a decent amount for new music as a result, via the current channels.
We did something like this under contract from teh record labels. We placed drm on windows media files and distributed them on p2p networks. At first, silently delivering licenses to the media player to encourage seeding, then flipping the switch to require a payment before play.
It was easily defeated by the fact that people don't download Windows Media Player files for audio tracks. Almost always they get mp3s w no drm. No mp4, that may be a different story. Of course, you can "wrap" an mp3 file with drm as well, but it should suffer the same fate as those files on the networks that are loops/screeching audio that only have a small inpact on the network. Just mho.
fyi, it turned my stomach to implement such a system and we have abandoned drm completely since then.
From the whole "napster" thing, to the nonsense in The Italian Job...
First of all, why put napster in quotes like it is some sort of imaginary thing? And second, you're upset because a movie made a crack at a piece of pop culture?
Napster was a huge deal at the time. And since the case ended, with the exception of the Italian Job reference, what else is so incredibly over-exposed about Napster that warrants bitching about being tired of it? And I also wouldn't describe him as "pimping himself out to both sides of the fence". He had a great idea and he went with it. So he had the choice of either sticking to his guns and having nothing or agreeing to play by the rules. I doubt that you'd do otherwise.
And I know I speak for many people when I say: "Whatever".
John.
Once this is implemented, people will still have to reach into their pockets and pull out their credit cards. At that point, it becomes no different than iTunes or the "new" Napster or any of the others. Everyone downloading free music from those networks will just move on to the next free network. Is there something I'm missing here that makes this time different?
Congratulations! You win the award for Best Use of Obvious Information for Karma!
Digital media without DRM is like fish without bicycles.
Sleep is futile.
Wasn't (in alchemy) the mythical philsopher's stone (not the sorcerer's stone....I have no idea that is.) that could aid in tranmutating objects without requiring the laws of equality (ie- alchemy works like an algeberic equation- for it to work both sides need to be equal. you cannot create something new out of nothing, just alter what already exists).
click me
Apart from being short it also repeats itself and is pretty light on the details. Basically it claims to turn an exisiting P2P application/network from having illegal files to only having legal files and legal downloads overnight. Ehm, how? and just as important. Why?
P2P has this deal. In exchange for bandwith I get free content. With this in exchange for bandwidth and cash I get paid for content. So like iTunes and all the others except I need to upload as well? Oh and have a really crummy search?
Right. Kazaa and others are what they are because I don't have to pay for what I download and because what is being shared is made by users. Bootlegs, old records, forgotten recordings, tiny bands. All the stuff you can't find in the shops.
If I am going to pay for downloads I want the bloody receiver of my money to pay for the fucking bandwith and not have to download it from some guys 56k modem. Geez. Is the music industry insane or just stupid?
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Since they are tracking d/ls they should be able to see who is being d/led and arrange payment to the artists/labels for their songs being d/led.
The money to pay them would come from legit banner ads within the program interface. Think about how large of an audience advertisers would be able to reach. I'm not talking about the usual hit the monkey and win but legit ads for things like upcoming movies tennis shoes etc.
As long as the banner ads werent all that obtrusive and the prog didnt install any of the crap like the spyware that comes with KaZaa I would have no problem putting up with ads in exchange for free legit music.
Clearly the tech industry media is hungry for "rock stars" but what most of us realize is that Shawn Fanning stumbling into writing a groundbreaking application does not make him a visionary. The same holds true for Marc Andreessen.
Someone was going to write the first successful P2P app, and someone was going to write the first successful web browser.
But being that someone doesn't make you a somebody worth caring about when the bright lights have faded.
"These people forget that the DRM'ed content is incompatible with my living room DVD player, my car CD player and my portable MP3 player."
Did I miss something? I have iTMS and an iPod. if I want it in my stereo, I use a $4 cable or a $100 AP Express. If I want it on my home disc player or car disc player I burn a CD.
and my iPod *is* an MP3 player, in common parlance.
What's the hard part?
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
This won't fly. For many reasons, but primarily there will be no assurance that what this software removes is truly unlicensed or even the file it thinks it is. And with no way to recoup lost files, it essentially won't gain acceptance. Whoever is hailing this as anything other than draconic needs to be shot.
"I have an odd craving to whisper about those few frightful hours in that ill-rumored and evilly shadowed seaport of dea
Back in the day artists needed the record companies because they provided a medium for distribution of the artists product, in the form of LPs, tapes, CDs, etc. The artists don't really make any money from these distributed media, but they do get their music out into the world. Artists income is primarilly from live performance, and it was healthy income so long as their albums were well distributed by a capable record company. Now, a medium for distribution (Free P2P networks) exists, and it isn't the recording industry so they're going nuts about it because they don't want to die off. What irks me is that they're winning now! Somehow, artists didn't choose to leave record companies, and consumers caved because of the threat of litigation (which I do not mean to make light of, it is a hefty threat). So that leaves us (in the most general sense of the word) working to keep a cumbersome, inefficient and net draining system in place. As I see it, the Recording Industry is really out of context, but it has lots of money in its paws so it's using it to thrash around.
and my iPod *is* an MP3 player, in common parlance.
Only among the hard disk players selling for over $300. Mine is not an over $300 player. It's less than $60 and holds about 700 meg on a shiny disk. I can fit about 12 CD's of stuff in it which is fine for my commute and a day at the office. I don't have to carry a CD case. In raw numbers, I think the CD MP3 players may outnumber iPods simply because they are more affordable. I know of one person at work that has the apple player, however I know 6 that have CD MP3 players. If one is going to get stolen, dropped or otherwise abused in a work environment, I'd rather lose the $50 player, not a $400 player.
If I want it on my home disc player or car disc player I burn a CD.
The shiny disk that fits the portable works in my car, my PC, my laptop, and in my living room DVD player. Why burn a disk that may run for maybe an hour when you can burn a disk that plays everywhere and is good for all day?
MP3's just work. DRM does not. All my public domain old time radio is already in MP3 format.
Did I miss something? I have iTMS and an iPod. if I want it in my stereo, I use a $4 cable or a $100 AP Express.
Why climb behing the cabinet to jocky cables, or buy another player just to play another format in the living room that won't play in my car or portable? It's easier to simply avoid incompatable formats.
Did you buy the Circuit City crippled format player so you could play the non-return rental DVD's? Neither did I. I didn't spend the money to buy DRM enabled players, so I'm not interested in DRM content.
I only bought a DVD player after it was here long enough to be firmly established. I didn't buy any of the $600 DVD players or $40 movies. I have bought a $60 player and some sub $10 movies. I know the movies will play on my next DVD player when mine dies.
Will your music play on your next audio player when your iPod and/or PC dies? My MP3's will work fine on my next MP3 CD player. That's why I support the format and don't support a DRM format. Your gullability to follow the DRM trail disturbes me. Are you thinking ahead, or just for the here and now?
The truth shall set you free!
I think he just did. iTMS is a very easy to use indexing tool which offers a huge catalog in an easily searchable way. You only pay when you find what you want, and $.99 isn't all that much if you've just dropped $400 on a player, and you can rip your existing CDs. Remember, a lot of these folks would buy the CDs anywaym and then have to rip them themselves. iTMS is a huge convenience.
And it's all about convenience. Apple has it down pat, and people are willing to pay for that.
Having had several newbie experiences on P2P myself, a really good, complete indexing service I only pay for when I get content sounds good to me. Make the price closer to allofmp3, and nobody's going to bother getting music over P2P except (a) for the principle of it and (b) they have no money and no job (aka lots of free time) so the time they spnd on P2P has novalue to begin with. The former are a pretty small fraction of the market, and you're not going to get the latter to pay no matter what you do.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
who doesn't want my bandwith used to support someone else's business? (I'm guessing no.)
In free P2P, while someone is downloading my music files, I or someone else can theoretically get something back from them. In this system, a user pays money to a third party, that points that person to my computer and uses my bandwith to deliver the file, and I cannot get any compensation. In contrast, iTunes supplies their own bandwith.
If I am misunderstanding something, please enlighten me, because this sounds ridiculous.
The labels (and the RIAA) unfortunately hated his idea so they sued him out of existence. In my opinion, that was a mistake.
Yeah, I have to chime in here. It was a HUGE mistake. In fact, there are a few people like me who are so pissed, we'll never buy from RIAA members ever again because of what they did to Napster. That may sound stupid or an excuse to illegally copy music. The fact is, I own cases and cases of legally purchased CDs and roughly 99% of my MP3 downloads were songs I already had in my collection but downloading was faster and easier than ripping myself.
On top of which, a good number of the downloads that weren't in my collection led to purchases of CDs.
If the music industry had found a way to work with its customers, who clearly wanted this medium, I would have been happy to pay for online music. But instead, they sued their customers and they sued Napster.
So, my feeling now is FUCK THEM. They won't get another penny out of me. They want to make things right with me, they can send me a check for all the crappy quality cassette tapes that stuck to tape heads and got eaten up, or for all the CDs (you know, the media that's supposed to last forever), that got eaten by (Slashdot won't take my link to: http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_328113.html)
Geotrichum fungus while I lived in Mexico.
Yeah, that'll fucking happen. Fuck 'em. I suspect the RIAA will have a much shorter lifespan than I will. I think they've outlived their usefulness and that's going to become readily apparent over the next decade. The music industry business model will change, the power and the money will go to the individual artists, where it belongs, and the RIAA will be but a bad memory.
And even if it doesn't happen, I'll keep hoping for it and I certainly won't help those assholes out.
Most people seem to be missing the central point of the article.
The idea seems to be to scan P2P networks for tracks. If the tracks on your PC have been downloaded "illegally", then the RIAA will send you a bill for the tracks, and a little extra for costs. Effectivly they will say:
"You've got our tracks. Pay us money"
Now you can say,
"Tsk,Tsk. Not a shread of proof do you have private company boy, except for your(possibly falsified) records. I might have borrowed the tracks from my friends, direct exchange etc. And besides, I had to format my disk yesterday anyway."
To which they will say(in the initial letter they sent you):
"You can pay us the $100 you owe us now, or we will sue you under the DMCA, PATRIOT, HR2391, and just about any other bullshit law we got past the braindead zombies on capitol hill. You don't like it? We can sue you for that too. Pay us the danm money of face a lifetime of bankruptcy. P.S. Any attempts to start a protest group will also lead to instant litigation. Have a merry fucking christmas. Buy a CD for $30! Now piss off!"
To which you will say:
NO CARRIER
May the Maths Be with you!