Slashdot Mirror
Peer Impact Signs 3 Major Record Labels
An anonymous reader submits "Three of the Big Four music labels have reached licensing agreements to provide their music to the soon-to-launch Peer Impact network, a peer-to-peer service that enables legal music file-sharing."
The next thing I know, someone will be telling me that speaking my peace in public is legal!
Kenny P.
Visualize Whirled P.'s
Are the files distributed on that network DRM'd somehow? If so that will doom it and give the RIAA more ammo for the "illegal P2P is killing us!" rant.
Trolling is a art,
Now There's Another Place To Get Your Jessica Simpson Fix, Legally
I sure hope they have better artist than this or you can count me out.
Agile Artisans
this isn't really 'sharing' as their press releases would have you believe.
It is 'sharing' as in sharing your bandwidth. You still pay for the download. Wurld Media gets a cut and so do the labels (and presumaby the artists).
The difference between something like this and iTunes is that they are going to try to sell it with the "p2p" sex-appeal to lure people in.
Since it is p2p, it will cut down on their bandwidth costs in a big way.
If the P2P protocol and/or client isn't superior to whats available (for 'free') to people, it won't fly.
If it IS superior, how long until we see a 'lite' version of their client that authenticates with an alternative server (or none at all) that gets widely distributed and used as a seperate and 'free' p2p network?
This one might be interesting.
..mork
All my disposable income...maybe now we can stop listening to the whining.
If you're paying money to 'share', aren't you really buying rather than sharing?
It seems like they're bastardising the concept of sharing to exploit the term's popularity.
Sweet informative mod.
Can anyone provide a link that actually has some useful info on this subject? The three links in the post essentially tell me nothing about the new service. How much will it cost? How does it work? Can we get some useful info other than "new mystery service coming soon!!" Slashdot must be partnered with them somehow...giving them free advertising.
Will the files be DRM'ed, and if so, how obtrusively? Does your music vanish if you cancel some sort of subscription? Will it be a subscription model, with monthly fees, or will it be a flat fee per song like iTunes? What format will the files be in? What platform(s) will the peering software run on? Will the labels' entire catalogs be available, or just some lesser artists and/or selections?
Finally they decide to do what we've been asking for years, to realize that the Internet and peer-to-peer networks really are not that bad and they can make money from it. I'm glad it only took them 5+ years and a few hundred law suites before they worked it out.
The application is called Peer Impact[www.peerimpact.com].
Peer Impact File sharing FAQ
Why is this news? It's just another commercial delivery system. Does using P2P somehow make it super sexy good? Thanks Tim. Not.
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
If they themselves will use some sort of p2p, they won't be able to ban it.
All the recent changes in law, IP, software patents simply frightens me...
...to allow a piece of software created by 3 of the "big 4" to run on their system?
You don't even need to be a tinfoil hat type to see that this is an extremely bad idea. I have no wish to be Pwn3d by the RIAA.
Can't wait to see what kinda packets people find this thing sending back to its masters.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
If I'm reading this correctly, this is a server-side addition that more or less bills you for downloading music through "normal" P2P networks -- normal as in ones with their software running.
And this is supposed to work, uhh, how, exactly?
Oh, and let me guess. You downloaded a bad rip and want a better one? Better pay up. Again.
In short: Nothing to see here. Move along....
"An infinite number of monkeys typing into GNU emacs would never make a good program."
Legal P2P file sharing? Where's the fun in that?
Can users add content to the network, or are we just talking about using out bittorrent-style p2p, where I donate my upload bandwidth to help keep the load off of a server?
In other words, is this just gonna be iTunes-clone + p2p-cause-it-sounds-sexy or is it a real file-SHARING network, where I can share MY files?
My other question is will there be DRM, but the answer to both is probably the same. If there is DRM, they wouldn't want users publishing un-DRM'd versions of things.
...do you think it will be until people hack the network? Perhaps to intercept en-route music for their own use, or perhaps just to add a black-market underground to the existing framework, indistinguishable from legal traffic?
And, on a related note, how long before the RIAA black suits arrive at the door of someone using this software in a way that they thought was legal but the RIAA doesn't?
Sorry for the pessimism, but I really think this is a bad idea. Maximizing profit is a motive that leads to bad decisions, and voluntarily letting go of the one thing that you want to control (ie an avenue to access to your content) is one of the worse decisions I've seen in a while. It's like having an MMOG which stores your characters on the local client.
adam b.
No Sir, I Don't Like It.
You create your own reality - Leave mine to me.
I don't download illegal music, but my friend does.... ya..that's it...my friend.
Anyway, my FRIEND notices that about half the P2P downloaded music is crap. Bad rips, crappy bitrates..you know what I mean.
So now I'm expected to pay for that? Why wouldn't I just go to iTunes instead so I can have a better quality copy of a song?
How will the music-sharing function of Peer Impact differ from peer-to-peer (P2P) sites and paid music download sites?
Peer Impact is a proprietary, patent-pending business model that will not be announced to the public until the Fall of 2004.
There are so many things wrong with this that I can't bear to go on...
perl -e 'foreach(values %SIG){$_="IGNORE";}while(){}'
From Pest Patrol http://www.pestpatrol.com/PestInfo/w/wurldmedia.as p#Overview
WURLD Media, Inc.
WurldMedia partners with StreamCast Networks, Inc., developers of Morpheus. A download of Morpheus will result in the installation of components associated with AtomWire and other browser helper objects. Components within a Morpheus installation will carry a variety of developer names within the code, including ESD Technologies, Inc., John Marshall, My Way, Summit Software Company, Wurld Media Inc., and XMLAuthor Inc.
soon-to-launch Peer Impact network, a peer-to-peer service that enables legal music file-sharing."
Shouldnt that read: that disables illegal music file-sharing?
1. Pink Floyd - "Money"
2. The Beatles - "Can't Buy Me Love"
3. Dire Straits - "Money for Nothing"
4. The Beatles - "Money (That's What I Want)"
5. Eddie Money - "Two Tickets to Paradise"
I'm not good in groups. It's difficult to work in a group when you're omnipotent. - Q
From their FAQ.
Is Peer Impact available outside the U.S.?
No. Due to licensing restrictions, Peer Impact is currently available to U.S. residents only.
..mork
That's like a highway where it's legal to speed, but takes you nowhere. That's like a legal drug, that doesn't get you high. That's like stealing your own stuff! Where's the fun in that?!
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
How does this thing make money? They're explicitly secret in their business model, though they have patented it. Patents are devices to protect publicly available knowledge, so they're already abusing the system. If the patent system weren't already synonymous with abuse, I'd say they're not just charging for downloads, because of course there's already prior art for that bizmodel. What is it?
--
make install -not war
--c'est tu--
My concern about these sorts of things is that Indi artists get lost.
With the major labels on-board, this company could easily forget that any other type of music exists.
Will they have a means for indipendant labels to register and use their sales/distribution scheme as well? I hope so! I know it adds hassles of verifying IP/ownership rights, but I think it would then appeal to a wider audience (although, I'll admit, a probably insignificant amount of the sales).
I'm on-board with the first solution which makes it open to ALL artists.
..mork
This is a service, that in almost everyway, is simply another pay-for-download music model.
You login, you license a song, you download it (with DRM).
Here's the difference, I'm guessing:
It's P2P. You download it from someone else on the network. That person gets some sort of recompensation based upon outgoing bandwidth used for legally purchased downloads.
Thus, if you have 100s of gigs online (legally purchased), and you serve it out on a fat pipe, and its stuff thats indemand, you may find a portion of your 'costs' paid for by the service.
Might work. Depend on whether or not the bandwidth savings for Wurld Media result in cheaper prices per song.
I doubt it, personal. Don't think they'll go under iTunes, and it'll still be difficult to compete with free.
It's a neat idea, but its just TOO late. You have mature free filesharing networks, and it just isn't going to work to introduce not-free (as in beer) networks.
It's telling consumers: Here, I have a product, its just like the one you already have, but you have to pay for mine.
Right.
At least with iTunes&look-a-likes, you get instant access to the music you want. Pay-for-P2P is slow, requires searching for music you may want, and requires money? Worst of all worlds.
I guess it is legal, and for the small portion of the public of which the legality of music sharing is a big deal, this may matter. But that demographic is a small part of slashdot, and I'm betting that its an even smaller part of the world at large.
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
How much does /. get for the free publicity?
:)
Seriously, I checked the wurld media site. This looks like (yet another) music label attempts to control the whole distribution stream.
My guess on how it works: You get a custom application (windows and mac only of course), that downloads and tracks MP3 files that are enrypted somehow. And every now and then, everything you've downloaded, how many times you listened to it, etc. is uploaded to some central server by the app, and you're billed, and the music industry gets more demographics than you can shake a stick at (don't think so? read the privacy policy on the company's web site about aggregate data).
So how how long will it be until someone decompiles the software, extracts the key, and puts it on BitTorrent?
Seriously, if all the "shared" files aren't free, why should I help them by offering my bandwidth to their other customers?
It's a bit like if I went to a shop, bought a disc, and the shop gave me 100 other copies to distribute by myself to other customers.
Now I can pay money to receive music at a quality that's inferior to CD at a store that has a selection inferior to any city's music store *AND* as an added bonus incur bandwidth sharing costs as well as opening my computer up to exploitation with yet another app with sockets a-listening.
Where do I sign up???
Why is it important that this is s filesharing network? What difference would it have made if subscriber had to download files from a central server? This is just a way of distributing legal music which reduces the load of the company's servers. This is just a technical difference. And some hype.
The only reason people share their bandwidth over P2P networks is because all the content is "free" for everyone (RIAA dont read this). If people are charged to download music from my machine, there is no reason why i should waste my bandwidth by sharing stuff on it. As it is, the internet runs really slow while im running P2P, just donsent make sense to share. So they will have all the licences, but no "Peers" in their "Peer-2-Peer" network !
I don't ever expect music to be completely free. It's just not reasonable to think that.
However, if the users of this new P2P model are sharing the bandwith requirement, couldn't we also expect to share in the profits as well?
Now, I'm not going to be holding my breath, watching my mailbox for a check, but shouldn't the price of the songs be cheaper because of reduced costs? Isn't that _one_ of the freaking things that new technology is suppose provide? Helping to lower costs?
- Kevin
The less confident you are, the more serious you have to act.
How will the music-sharing function of Peer Impact differ from peer-to-peer (P2P) sites and paid music download sites?
Peer Impact is a proprietary, patent-pending business model that will not be announced to the public until the Fall of 2004. While we wish we didn't have to keep our Peer Impact Community members in the dark, it's imperative that we keep a few things secret right now, as we develop the fully functional service that will allow secure and legal music file sharing for our members.
Looks like they're going after the iTunes market and not the napster market. Or, to put it more simply, people who have money to buy things and belive in buying things and not people who just want something for nothing and everything to be free. Too many college cry babies living at home with mommy and daddy who think they're entittled to everything. Getting a little old...
it will be better than current free p2p filesharing networks because of that reason and because it will be legal, which allows corporations to better invest in ways to make it better.
They didn't create it anymore than they created itunes.
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
Why in the world, would you want to use P2P for buying music?
Is there some discount I get for other users leeching off my bandwidth?
Yes, I am a smart ass; it's better than the alternative.
I'm making the assumption that this uses DRM and is actually p2p. So how on earth could that possibly work?
Just a quick primer, DRM (at least in any existing form) is nothing more than public key encryption turned upside down. A private key is generated on your machine and the public key is sent to the server (in the case of itunes or napster v2). The public key is used to encrypt any files you "purchase" so that only the private key can decrypt it. So far so good, but that is just simply public key encryption. What makes it DRM is that the software attempts to "hide" your own private key from you, the rational being that if you can access your own key, you can decrypt the data at will and save it rather than letting the application place all kinds of restrictions on you.
If this seems like an incredibly ignorant and technologically weak idea it is only because that is exactly what DRM is.
So how do you pull something like that off in a P2P environment? Who handles keys? Who encrypts stuff and to whom? I can only see this working with a flat fee based system where everyone has access to everything which has been encrypted with the same key. Of course as soon as that one key is "found" (and it will be, it has to be in every player on the network), the whole system falls apart.
Details on this would be nice (and not too much to ask from a news for nerds site), right now there just seems to be empty marketing blurbs.
Finkployd
What a SCAM!
The only way that ANY legit p2p service/program can ever work is by charging a flat rate for 'all you can download'. Or at least have a two tiered system where the Billboard top 100 sells a la carte, but once a song falls off the top 100, it moves into the flat rate category. This is basically the model the movie industry uses. New films are exhibited in theatres for a premium price, but once their popularity starts to wane, they move to HBO and DVD. Also, lose the DRM! If you don't, your plan is doomed to FAIL. Someone will crack it anyway! Accept the fact that while some theft is inevitable, the majority will do the right thing and sign up. Besides, despite what you say in all your RIAA bullshit rhetoric, most of the people who download now wouldn't be buying the song anyway.I think the record labels have slightly missed the point here. People don't use p2p networks because it's a great way to distribute music, they use them because it's a great way to get hold of *free* music. It just feels like they're jumping on the p2p bandwagon.
I don't think that selling the content through this channel is really that much benefit, whereas having a music store (ITMS) that's distributed about (Akamai) and has high speed 'net links to anyone on the internet (better than one would get on limewire) is a more attractive propsition. You get the music you payed for quickly, and don't have to run the gauntlet of p2p virii, skiddiots, etc. It's also centrally administered, and therefore provides better accountability to the labels who signed up.
People steal music mostly because it's too expensive to buy in the shops. Studies also show that p2p sharing actually increases shop sales.
What is the real advantage to a consumer of a system like this, as opposed to a traditional download system such as iTunes? I doubt the downloads will be significantly faster, and I suppose that the catalog won't be anything spectacular. You can get your WMA fix from Napster or Real with minimal upstream bandwidth.
emphasis theirs
So, they appear to be saying "We'll only ever disclose information at an aggregate level and no one will ever know it's you". But how does that assist law enforcement "...when bringing legal action against someone..."? It appears that they WILL sell you out.
Not that THAT should come as any great surprise.
Reason why there is hope for the future generation #364:
"I wish my grass was emo so it could cut itself."
I for one welcome...er....no..no, i really don't welcome our new P2P pay-per-download music store overlords.
ItWasFree.com - Take the mystery
The whole point to getting music over P2P back in the days of (the original) Napster, was that it was free and there were no other legal ways to purchase individual tracks at the time. With services like iTunes, the current Napster, Wal-Mart, RealAudio, and even the legally questionable AllOfMP3, why would you want the hassle of P2P's unreliability?
I've never had to wait for a track I purchased from iTunes to start downloading. Everything is exactly as it should be, no improperly named or corrupt files. I would NEVER pay a fee to use a P2P network. IMHO, with the choices people have for music stores at the moment, I don't see this idea working at all.
---
DRM is like antifreeze, to the MPAA/RIAA it's sweet, to the consumers it's poison.
They will only allow files that match their server list.
Theoretically this isn't all bad as long as there exists a straight answer to the following question: How can I, as representative of a hypothetical microlabel, begin licensing talks with the company to add my label's catalog to their server list?
Now I can pay money to receive music at a quality that's inferior to CD at a store that has a selection inferior to any city's music store
Given the political turmoil in countries with large fuel deposits, how much does it cost to transport your body from your house to the store and back?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Looks like they're going after the iTunes market and not the napster market.
Is there a difference? The only differences I see between iTMS and Napster are 1. Napster uses WMA+MSDRM instead of AAC+FairPlay, and 2. Napster also offers a streaming service for $10/mo. Is there another big difference? Or how are those two differences major?
Buy cd's for 15 dollars and sell them for 3?
I want my money back bitch!
Oh flamers: I was that poor!
What this scheme attempts to do is block the illegal part that the others pay no mind to.
And yes I know the usage stats. I know most P2P is violating copyrights. But it's just ignorance to say this scheme "enables" legal music sharing like it's something missing in all other methods. Perhaps the proper verbage is "enforces" legal music sharing...
As it is, the internet runs really slow while im running P2P
If P2P traffic gets in the way of your web surfing, then throttle your upload to 75 percent of your theoretical max so that outgoing request packets and acknowledgment packets can get through.
Ok Chuck, I'll walk you through it step by step.
"This means you won't be able to steal music" - you cannot "steal" music. You can only commit copyright violations. Stealing music is impossible, unless you shoplift CDs. And even then, you're stealing the CDs, not the music. The music still exists.
"that artists worked so hard to produce" - you know, I actually know people who play music because they just like to. Odd, no?
"and music companies worked so hard to distribute." - Cost of a music CD, about 10 bucks. Cost of a Hollywood movie on DVD, about 15. But making a movie is orders of magnitude more expensive to make and market. Wanna know why? Here's why. The music industry is uniquely corrupt. And also incompetent. Are you sure you want these goons scanning your hard drive, even if you haven't done anything wrong? What if your name happens to be Usher, too?
"Woe is you!" - and woe is anyone who allows this band of barely legalized criminals into their affairs. Even with something as simple as a click through EULA.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
First, as I believe has been mentioned before, Wurld Media is a huge adware vendor. While this alone would prevent me from consider using PeerImpact (I don't want to see adware vendors making any more money), it's a vital clue to their revenue model. This may allow them to offer lower prices on the same content that's available on other authorized download sites, perhaps using a BMI/ASCAP type system where a portion of the ad revenues are distributed to the content creators in proportion to their popularity on the service.
Next, I've seen nothing that has made it clear that there would not be plenty of free content on the site. I think many people here are making the assumption that 100% of the content would be $0.99 a song like iTMS. I see the availability of a large amount of free content as a big possibility due to the ad revenue stream (after all, downloads on Kazaa are free because their business model is based on ad revenue). There are tons of indie musicians who own their own masters and who already use P2P or free web site downloads to get their music out -- and this service might be appealing to them, as well.
Putting that last point another way, I constantly see folks posting that while they're aware that some unauthorized content must be going back and forth on Kazaa, they only use it for *nix distros and trading authorized tracks from unsigned bands. The point they make is that P2P itself is not illegal. This venture can be seen as an attempt to test the there's a viable business model based on that theory. You've asked for it -- and you've got it.
Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
They want to use our bandwidth, slap DRM on it and expect us to pay $1/song ? I can see it now!
"ALL THE HASSLE^H^H^H^H^H FEATURES OF P2P CAN NOW BE YOURS FOR ONLY $.99 A SONG!"*
*DRM may apply.
I think one way of getting people to buy cd from stores and not getting them on the internet would be to offer the possiblity to actually go in a store,,select different songs from different artist and compile them on a single cd ,let say a 1,50 $ a song + the cd itsel 1$,,,stores would have to be equipped with good equipment to sell high quality personnalised cd's,,,,if you only want one or two songs, why not pay for just that.
I think this could seriously convert some people to stop sharing music, as for myself there'a a lot of song i get from the internet because i dont want to buy the album for just that song.
Utopia?? maybe
As I read this the Apple iPod story has garnered more than 500 responses - and about 150 comments on this thread. I read this as: "Who cares?"
I would think that the big four labels signing onto a p2p network of any sort would be huge news, but I guess even in the techie world we just dont care. Between bittorrent, soulseek, kazaa, winMX, aquisition and so forth (oh and Rhapsody / iTunes music store) it seems that the labels are trying to fill a market need that has already been met.
Will they make money? Undoubtedly they will stay profitable but even having RTFA it seems like a last gasp. Hopefully (for them) this will be a lesson learned and that next time the market moves they will take a positive action to fill consumers needs (as opposed to the reactionary negative actions that we have come to expect).
---- The real Slashdot is still here. You just have to browse at -1 to read the comments.
"Cost of a music CD, about 10 bucks. Cost of a Hollywood movie on DVD, about 15. But making a movie is orders of magnitude more expensive to make and market. Wanna know why?"
Remember, the primary income stream from most films is the box office. The DVD is just the icing on the cake. The record company gets one chance, and one chance only, to make money: when they sell that CD.
Artists get the short end of the stick when they get a recording contract -- no doubt about that. That's what happens when there are many, many more people who want a recording contract than can get one. Similar things happen the IT industry when there are gluts of unemployed IT workers. Yet the recording industry is not a lucrative one. You rarely if ever see record companies on stock analysts' "buy" lists, and record companies must operate on profit margins that are much lower than many other industries that most Slashdotters don't think of as similarly evil. It's also a crowded industry, which is why record companies go out of business every week.
Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
The record company LOANS the artist $$$! Each artist has to pay back the label for all that marketing, engineering, etc.
Most bands starting out make NOTHING from their first few albums; the label gets it all!
Here's somethiung for you to read. Steve Albini has been in the business a LONG time, and is very well known and respected. I know him personally and he has something that very few others in the record business have: INTEGRITY!
Want to know the truth? read this:
http://www.negativland.com/albini.html
I prefer Gnutella.
Remember, it's the uploaders they go after... not the downloaders.
You'll be fine.
We have secretly replaced these Slashdot mods' sense of humor with a rusty nail. Let's see if they notice!!
There are no bad rips. It's not possible. Only WurldMedia can post content to their "seeding servers". All others are sharers/clients. Downloads are checked with hashing keys to make sure the match valid content from the seeding servers.
This also allows you to download one file from dozens of locations simultaneously.
all we need is our own clients that downloads without doin the charging thing.
I emailed them today asking questions such as these. Here is their response:
Hi Anonymous Coward,
Thank you for your inquiry. Although the news broke today regarding our
licensing agreements with major labels, we are still holding-off on
releasing information relating directly to how the service will work
until we are ready to launch it to the public.
I would encourage you to be sure to sign up for the Beta Test by
submitting your email address on the peerimpact.com home site.
Thanks again for your interest and have a great holiday!
Peer Impact Customer Support
-----Original Message-----
From: Anonymous Coward.
Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2004 11:50 AM
To: PI-Contact
Subject: Peer Impact P2P
To whom it may concern,
I am interested in how Peer Impact will work. Given it is peer to
peer and therefor the cost of bandwidth is being shared by all those
involved, will it significantly reduce the cost of tracks? What
Format will the music be in? What are going to be the restrictions
placed on songs I buy through peer impact. Can I burn the tracks to
CD? I have a significant investment in being able to play mp3s in my
car, will I be able to convert Peer Impact tracks to mp3 for use on my
existing devices? Thank you for you time. I hope to hear from you
soon.
Anonymous Coward.
it's more than just the record labels who are ripping the consumer off.
And how much do you want to bet that the music industry hasn't learned a thing from when it destroyed DAT. Peer-to-peer is the best that ever happened, from a technological/consumer point of view, for content distribution but the studios' never-ending quest for control usually makes any attempt to break out of their old mold useless to consumers. I'll reserve judgment 'til I see it, but I'm not hopeful.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
This is so cool... finally a way to share P2P! Will this trend continue to pick up speed? With the fourth major label give in and allow Peer Impact to distribute their music too? How will all of this affect the Music Industry? I think the Music Industry will flourish from this strategic move... Have a great Thanksgiving everyone!