RIAA Supporting Commercial P2P

cgibby98 writes "The AP reports: 'In the last few months, major record labels have signed licensing deals with companies working to field file-swapping services that would block unauthorized files from being traded online.' Most interesting is a service called Peer Impact, which 'can be used to find and purchase tracks from an initial catalog of a half-million songs from all the major labels.... After a user buys a song from Peer Impact, future buyers get it from that member -- or others who have gotten it in the meantime -- instead of from a central server. Users have to pay for each track they download, but sharing songs they've purchased from Peer Impact earns them credits they can spend on the service.'"

Comments

Artists

[matt me]

If the artists aren't going to get any royalties from this, then this is the RIAA committing piracy.

Re:Artists

[Peyna]

If the artists aren't going to get any royalties from this, then this is the RIAA committing piracy.

Was there any claim that they wouldn't be receiving the royalties guaranteed them in their contracts? Oh, and most of the time, the artists don't hold the copyrights to their works anyway, they sold them along with their soul in order to get signed to a particular label.

If the RIAA didn't give the artists any royalties due, they would be breaching their contract with the artists, but not committing piracy.

Re:Artists

[BlogPope]

Why wouldn't the artists get Royalties? Everybody buys the music, they are just saving themselves the bandwidth by storing the music on your computer and using your bandwidth to deliver it. You get some token "credit" for your trouble, that you can spend on buying more stuff from them.

More interesting is their pricing structure. Will they try to raise prices, since they have already BMW'd about the .99 cent cost, or will they leverage their connections to undercut iTunes and get their own DRM solution in place?

Re:Artists

[cryptoguy]

It should be cheaper to buy from a peer on the network than from the central server, because the server adds no value in that case. You aren't using their disk storage and you aren't using their bandwidth. All you should have to pay is a royalty of a few pennies, to go to the coypright holder.

What is really needed is a way to take the RIAA out of the loop and have royalties go directly to the copyright holder (which eventually would be the performer or composer for new works).

Re:Artists

[Anonymous Coward]

First post!

Re:Artists

[aklix]

It's doubtfull the RIAA will approve of this, but wouldn't this be able to server as a medium for artists to publish their music directly? There's no more high distribution costs, so it makes more sense to slowly phase the recording industry to a minimum.

Re:Artists

[RobotRunAmok]

What is really needed is a way to take the RIAA out of the loop and have royalties go directly to the copyright holder (which eventually would be the performer or composer for new works).

Well, which is it, the performer or the composer? What about the producer? The recording engineer? Who's tracking all this data? Who's holding the money? (Please don't tell me it's the lead singer, or the code monkey who set up the torrent...)

There is still a business to the distribution of Art, and although the Internet may have made the process "simpler" to the consumer, the accounting and funds disbursement is still a nightmare. There's a reason, beyond the "Look, Ma, I signed with A&M!" appeal that artists sign away rights to Big Businesses: The Big Businesses handle the big business, and that frees up creators to create, and not balance books, write checks, and lick envelopes all day long.

Do many artists sign away too many rights? Are the labels and publishers too greedy? Inarguably. But artists need some middle-ground choice between being a slave and becoming a CPA (I'm not sure there is any genuine substantive difference between either fate, but you get my drift...)

Re:Artists

[jambarama]

Interesting idea. Credits for bandwidth. The problem I see, is this. What will they allow you do with a credit?

If you can get new songs with it, I can easily see someone with a big pipe seeding the popular songs to get the ones they really want. If you offer anything other than new songs, no one will seed. 'Access to exclusive videos' or cereal box gimmicks, won't get my bandwidth. And what is to stop someone from creating a garbage file named some popular song, give it the right md5 (or whatever) hash, and seed it?

I am sure they will retreat to the Napster idea of having centralized listing for the songs, so bandwidth & hosting costs will not be zero, they will be less. Napster had hundreds of servers before they went down. I say they will do this because this is the only way to control who gets what. You have to come to the central servers and for a cost (better be less than $.99 if they are getting rid of most bandwidth costs) your program gets a list of IP's hosting the song, and connects to them.

What'd really be smart is to use something akin to bittorrent for this. Let many people seed the song so rather than getting 'the fastest' connection, you (roughly) get the sum of the fastest connections. You wouldn't have 'poisoning' problems Kazaa does. You also could automatically pick up on a file if your connection drops out, or the other guys does (the bane of napster). If you controlled the trackers and just slighly modified bittorent so you never see the torrent file, (so you cannot redistribute access to the song) it'd be much better. Today's technology versus 5 years ago.

This is a good idea. Will it catch on with the public? Depends on how shiny the interface is, and how quickly they offer iPod friendly music. Will it catch on with smart people? DRM? Ahem, no thanks. I've got allofmp3.com.

Re:Artists

[pete6677]

If the artists aren't going to get any royalties from this

That wouldn't really be different than the current situation. New artists get screwed out of pretty much all royalties anyway. The only musicians making money on royalties are no longer bound by their first recording contract and have much more favorable terms.

Re:Artists

[cryptoguy]

RobertRunAmock inquired:
> Well, which is it, the performer or the composer?

It is not ambiguous who owns the copyright.

Eventually someone will start a P2P-based business to collect royalties and distribute to copyright owners, and will contract directly with artists. That will be to the advantage of everyone except the RIAA, whose buggy whips are not really needed any more.

Re:Artists

[g0dsp33d]

Excuse my ignorance, but how can they be sure someone won't just hack the client into a non paying program? Won't they need some system to validate that the user is legitament and has the appropriate credits? If so, they will need a bunch of servers anyway. If not, sign me up for the cracked client.

Re:Artists

[Peyna]

You can search copyright records at http://www.copyright.gov/ easily;

For example, I searched for Weezer, and you'll see that their song "Undone" lists Spike Jonze as the director, but the "Claimant" (copyright holder) is Geffen Records, Inc. (employer for hire). Sometimes the actual author is listed, but that means nothing as far as who is entitled to royalties or has control over the work.

What the artist gets is determined entirely by their contract with the record company. Feel free to look up more of your favorite artists, etc. But you will rarely find a well-known artist that owns their own copyright.

Therefore, it is impossible in most cases for your "someone" in your hypothetical to contract directly with the artist, because the artist has nothing to offer them.

Re:Artists

[AK Marc]

If the RIAA didn't give the artists any royalties due, they would be breaching their contract with the artists, but not committing piracy.

Why not? "Stealing" is misused all the time by them. So why can't we call the one-sided contracts they sign "piracy?" It's only fair that both sides misuse words to make the other seem more disreputable (not that it is really possible with recording executives, but we can try).

Re:Artists

[Peyna]

I think the appropriate term for what the RIAA does to artists is "rape".

Re:Artists

[v01d]

Feel free to look up more of your favorite artists, etc. But you will rarely find a well-known artist that owns their own copyright.

I had thought you were right, but looking up Nine Inch Nails it would seem otherwise. Better than half is owned by Trent Reznor.

Re:Artists

[g0dsp33d]

Will I get credits for sharing the music I downloaded on Kazaa?

Re:Artists

[Marc2k]

Uh, well, He's still right. For a number of reasons.

• Trent Reznor produces, tracks, and probably even mixes his records himself. Nine Inch Nails on record basically is Trent, and he's a good producer at this point, having a lot of experience, especially getting his own ideas onto tape. I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't also mix his records, as that's a pretty important creative extension of a recorded work.
• Trent Reznor is Trent Reznor. If he were to sit down to discuss a record contract with a major label, he brings a lot more to the table than bands like Staind, The Darkness, or Britney Spears. He's already got household recognition, and With Teeth is a testament, people will buy his record no matter how bad it is. But this point is moot, because:
• Trent Reznor owns Nothing Records. Or at least a part of it. Or runs it. I have no idea. But running with the idea that he owns it, if you follow my bullet points, so far he's already brought to the table every part of the recording process. In terms of actually making the cd, all that's left is pressing and distribution. I have no idea how much Nothing actually does, or how they're affiliated with any other major labels, but they could do anything from pressing the cd to distributing and promoting it as well, at which point, he has complete control from the one end to the other. But the main point is that he does so much of it himself, it makes no sense for him to give up his rights now. If a label wants all rights to a cd he's written, recorded, mixed, and pressed, he'd be an fool to agree. At this point, he's also made enough $$ to just press, distribute, and promote it himself. Maybe that's how Nothing started, I really have no idea how much of the process they handle.

Re:Artists

[cryptoguy]

If you build it, they will come.

Remember I'm talking about new works. What artist wouldn't prefer to keep the copyright on new works, if there were a viable distribution network that would collect royalties for them?

Re:Artists

[Peyna]

Remember I'm talking about new works. What artist wouldn't prefer to keep the copyright on new works, if there were a viable distribution network that would collect royalties for them?

The problem is they need a way to gain popularity. Word of mouth is only successful for the best of the best, and even then it can't be counted on.

So, how do you become popular? You could go and try to play in every city in the US, but you need money to do that. Money that record labels will put down for you and then you can earn back by selling tickets and records.

Or you can try radio. But, guess what? ClearChannel and a few others own radio. They're not going to let just anyone have access to their airwaves. But they have some good friends in the record industry that they give access too. Good luck getting decent radio play without the label.

The problem lies at the core of the music industry. An independent artist has a very difficult time getting established because all of the major distribution/advertising channels are ran by the industry giants.

Reminds me of a something that a manufacturer said about Wal-mart, "The only thing worse than doing business with (any record label) is not doing business with (any record label)."

Now, that doesn't mean this is an unchangeable system, but it is one hell of a beast to slay.

Re:Artists

[cryptoguy]

> Now, that doesn't mean this is an unchangeable
> system, but it is one hell of a beast to slay.

Granted. But there is a huge economic incentive to eliminate the middle man. Both the artist and the customer will benefit.

Artists could sign with publicity agents. They could attract venture capital investments. They could purchase air time. They could prime the pump by releasing free music. They could give free concerts in major cities. They could tour the country. They could perform outrageous publicity stunts to gain notariety. Etc...

Not to mention the fact that there are already a lot of artists with well known names. These artists could opt out of their current deals at the next opportunity and adopt a new business model.

It won't be easy but I think there is enough financial incentive to overcome that.

Re:Artists

[mahdi13]

but how can they be sure someone won't just hack the client into a non paying program?

My guess would be that they are using a centralized server, like how Napster worked. That way each user would need to authenticate off the main server and find what they want to download from there...

This should work as planned and prove to be profitable, also a Mac/Linux client would be nice :)

Re:Artists

[1ucius]

I suspect the parent may be right. A 'copyright' is actually a bundle of individually assignable rights. The courts have generally held that the original author owns each right unless they specifically assign that right. The problem this leads to is that the contracts before the mid-90's didn't address the 'transmission over the internet' rights, which means the RIAA doesn't have that particular copyright. However, the author did assign the 'reproduce' and 'distribution' rights. The end result of all this is that the RIAA can't license an online music store b/c they don't have the internet retransmission right and the artist can't license it because they don't have the duplication right.

Re:Artists

[Vorondil28]

You're exactly right. I think having a record label that serves the Artist rather than the Artist serving the label would solve a heap of troubles. Simple as that.

Re:Artists

[GamblerZG]

The Big Businesses handle the big business, and that frees up creators to create...

...things that Big Business wants to sell and nothing else.

Re:Artists

[bombshelter13]

Erm... um.. er. *head explodes* You do know what an md5 is, right? By 'giving it the right md5', they have turned their 'garbage file' into the actual song. At least, that's the only remotely easy way to 'give it the right md5'. If it's got the same md5, the odds are 99.99% that it is the same file. The odds of managing to create a different file with the same md5 are incredibly miniscule.

Re:Artists

[bonehead]

If I'm not mistaken, I believe that Motley Crue has also re-acquired all of the rights to their song catalog.

It sticks in my head because it was a pretty big deal at the time, since very few bands ever manage to do that.

Re:Artists

[TerminalBlue]

Somebody should riddle me this; The labels take almost all the money from record sales, and the only real way that bands end up making actual cash is by doing shows and selling merchandise, right? Well, the RIAA says that stealing music is bad for the artists, but as far as I can tell the artist isn't losing a penny(or at least a very small portion of their income) when you download an album instead of buying it in a store. Furthermore, does it make someone less likely to enjoy the band, and thus spend money of t-shirts and concerts which actually make the artist most of his money? Not saying that it's particularly right, but the RIAA isn't fooling many people with their whole 'save the starving artists' angle.

Re:Artists

[Peyna]

but the RIAA isn't fooling many people with their whole 'save the starving artists' angle.

Which is why their angle is more like "Save the starving stage-hand." At least I know the MPAA was taking this approach. They know people don't care if the actors lose money, because they see visibly every day that they aren't starving, but what about all the other employees involved in movie/music production?

Re:Artists

[radiotalent]

The Big Businesses handle the big business, and that frees up creators to create, and not balance books, write checks, and lick envelopes all day long.

The recording industry should be the "for hire" workers in a fair system. A small business doesn't give the accountant any trademarks or patents they use just to get the books balanced. Nor does the UPS guy get final say in next falls product line. And last I knew, the newspapers don't get the keys to the warehouse when its time to run a few ads. Unless you're the RIAA, the current business model makes little sense applied to its own industry...and becomes quite laughable when compared to others.

Re:Artists

[Popcorn Dave]

You've got a good point. What's going to prevent someone from buying a track and then recording the output via any number of software packages that allow you to record your sound card output and then making it available for trade elsewhere?

Re:Artists

[LordoftheWoods]

No, the odds are nowhere near that high.

5 meg file 128 bit hash

99.9% ?

it just doens't add up...

But yes, it is (by design) very difficult to generate a random file with a specific cryptographic hash, especially with size constraints.

So you are correct in saying that the only remotely easy way to do so is to use the original file, but your numbers are way off.

WTF?

[shawiiing]

So now its a GOOD THING if I buy a music download and then resell it hmmm.... Sheesh who took the stupid stick to these guys this time?

Re:WTF?

[Bimo_Dude]

You will be "reselling" it, but the labels will be taking the money. I do, however, think that this is a VERY small step in the right direction, and it indicates that they are at least (finally) interested in looking at alternative methods of distribution.

I, for one, still will not welcome our RIAA-false-legit-filesharing overlords, and will still refuse to support the major labels (since they rip off the artists anyway).

Re:WTF?

[buro9]

So... we pay for the distribution now... the manufacturing has vanished... and still they'll try and DRM it (making less useful than a plain CD) and will probably will charge it at the same or higher rate than CD's.

This isn't a win... it's a lose.

If they drop the prices to reflect that manufacturing and distribution have now been removed... and also to reflect that now we just want the good stuff and not the padded albums... then they might have something.

Re:WTF?

[TrippTDF]

I don't think it's the "stupid stick", but maybe the "wake up stick".

There is no way the RIAA can win this battle... whatever copyright scheme they come up with, the pirates find a solution... Shutting down Napster sprung up several other services... going after swappers is leading to encrypted and decentralized networks that mask identity.
BR So... "if you can't beat em', join em". seems to be the new tactic, which will not end the battle so much as merge the two sides. Yes, piracy will always exist, but if the average user finds it to be less of a problem to go legal than illegal, they will do it. The RIAA figured this out and will go this route, and it might just work.

Re:WTF?

[Southpaw018]

*ahem* RTFA?
It's a file sharing system meant to both supply legal downloads on a p2p basis and encourage sharing. If you have a song, and someone else sees you have a song and they download it, you get some credits toward the service. It's a clever "social networking" kind of way to get music out there to more people than it otherwise might have reached AND it's an embrace of the legitimate power of p2p.

That said, this isn't exactly an ultimate solution and it certainly doesn't do anything to repair the RIAA's image. Baby steps. Baby steps.

Re:WTF?

[The_Mr_Flibble]

Well If people want in on this I have another scheme er business proposition I'll sell you this pack of information for $10 that you will be able to sell on to other people for $10 thus getting your money back on your initial purchase.

Am I the only one that thinks this looks like a pyramid scheme ?

Unless of course we can trust the RIAA

Re:WTF?

[Anonymous Coward]

and will still refuse to support the major labels (since they rip off the artists anyway).

I hope you are sending $1 directly to the artist for each song you download. Oh, you don't? I knew you were just pretending to care about the artist in order to justify your own filthy habit.

Re:WTF?

[AccUser]

You buy the song first, and download it. Someone else buys the song, and downloads it from you. Others buy the song, and download it from you and the second guy, etc. The service gets the cash, but without the cost of the bandwidth.

Re:WTF?

[Bimo_Dude]

Ok. Troll, I'll bite.

I do support the artists directly, at least the good ones (which are usually not on the major labels). I buy music from the artist directly on their site or from Indie Music. If I have to go through a major label, then, IMHO, that is not supporting the artist.

BTW... next time, AC, try posting as yourself. You may appear to have a little more credibility that way.

Re:WTF?

[daikokatana]

And *that* is exactly it's problem: they want me to pay for my music AND give away free bandwidth to others? Hell no!

Re:WTF?

[Anonymous Coward]

BTW... next time, AC, try posting as yourself. You may appear to have a little more credibility that way.

Attacking the anonymity of another user in an attempt to make yourself look better probably diminishes you more than the person who chose to post anonymous.

You do realize that there are a number of us without regular accounts that use Slashdot and always post anonymously?

Re:WTF?

[linsys]

DUAH this is NOT a "pyramid scheme" because you ONLY get credit for people downloading from you, if it where a "pyramid scheme" you would get credit for people downloading from the people who downloaded from you...

Re:WTF?

[Anonymous Coward]

duah Nope the only people that would be getting credit from downloading the things downloaded off you by the people downloading would be the riaa.

Re:WTF?

[BackInIraq]

So... we pay for the distribution now... the manufacturing has vanished... and still they'll try and DRM it (making less useful than a plain CD) and will probably will charge it at the same or higher rate than CD's.

This isn't a win... it's a lose.

If they drop the prices to reflect that manufacturing and distribution have now been removed... and also to reflect that now we just want the good stuff and not the padded albums... then they might have something.

You were never really paying for the distribution and manufacturing...how much do you think it costs to press a CD (in bulk, no less) and ship it to Target? Couple bucks, maybe? If that? Same with stores like iTunes. You really aren't paying for their bandwidth or servers...at least not more than a few cents per song.

What you are paying for when you lay down 12.99 US 14.99 US for a CD is *marketing*. And not just marketing for that artist...for ALL the artists on that label. That's how this whole "record company" thing works. They push their Creeds and their Britneys hard, and take chances on less popular groups...if the less popular ones fail, the money that the biggies bring in balances it out and pays for future gambles (and shiny cars for record execs and big-name artists).

Sure, you'll say you already knew this. But then why were you insinuating that the price of music has ANYTHING to do with the cost of manufacturing and distribution? Bandwidth and discs? Sure, they should probably charge a few cents less per song than a store like iTunes...but then they lose the magic .99 US price point. Remember, you are paying for the *music*...not the file, not the plastic disc...the music. Even if it cost them absolutely nothing...not one penny...to get this music to you, they would probably charge pretty much the same price. The only reason that albums (sometimes) cost a little less on iTunes is that they are competing with themselves. If they had discontinued CDs and were doing straight online downloads, iTunes would actually be *more* expensive.

Repeat after me, one last time for emphasis. The price of music has absolutely nothing to do with the cost of music. Nothing whatsoever. So no, they would not charge you less because their costs are less. They *may* charge you less because they are competing with their own alternatives which the consumer might percieve as a greater value, but that is the only reason.

And yeah, DRM sucks. The only way I'd actually use a service like this is if it offered a MUCH better selection than the other online stores (such as iTunes) and had DRM that is no more restrictive than iTunes. And preferably as easily removed :). I'd give up my bandwidth for that...at least some.

I actually applaud them for finally thinking outside their little box...the idea of using the user's bandwidth and then compensating them with further purchases is pretty progressive. They'd just have to keep a central server up as a "backup" in case nobody was seeding the song a user wants...because the first time or two I went to download a more obscure song and couldn't get it because nobody was seeding, all you'd see is a Road Runner-style dust trail leading off into the sunset from me.

Re:WTF?

[Kylere]

I have to assume you are too ignorant to breath. RTFA it says you gain credits for them using your bandwidth.

I bet you run XP without security updates.

Re:WTF?

[Maxo-Texas]

They can't download it from you unless they buy it in the first place.

Essentially you are selling your bandwidth to the record company for credits to buy other songs with. You paid for it, except for the first copy, you download it from another person, you stored it for the record company, you used your bandwidth to offer it to others.

Essentially, the record company only has to maintain bandwidth and storage for 1 copy of each song to be downloaded each time. Their costs will be virtually zero.

What do you want to bet that they will still charge a "fair" price of a dollar a track for it?

Re:WTF?

[buro9]

Thanks for the education, you'll find my name on various records by Belle & Sebastian and Elastica and as part of the history of Jeepster Records. Did I mention I have a Silver disk, Gold disk, and that we won a Brit Award for B&S? I sat on the Association of Independent Music's internet committee, and have spoken at a couple of In The City conferences. My work has been nominated for NME website of the year. And hey... I do know this stuff, and unless you turn out to be Pete Waterman, I'm probably safe in saying that the 5 years in the industry gives me the edge in this debate.

Anyhow, labels do pay for manufacturing (30p in the UK (usually manufactured in mainland europe though) including an 8 page colour booklet and jewel case), and for distribution (80p in the UK, via Vital). Oh, and MCPS (mechanical copyrights) 30p... to the band.

So there's £1.50 to take off the price.

That doesn't seem much, but that £1.50 is almost half of the UK dealer price. The dealer price being what the shops pay for it.

Did I say half? Surely not... no, you all believe that the labels get more... but let's go from the experience we had: £6 is what you say you're going to sell it to record shops at, £4.50 is what you are prepared to deal down to to get it into all shops. £3.30 is what the big few retailers bully you down to (they have market share, you're an indie, what are you going to do?).

So the manufacturing and distribution is almost half the amount that labels charge retailers. Which means that the label is only getting £1.80 per CD, to split with the band and to cover overheads of office, marketing, etc.

Yup, you pay for marketing, the first week shelves across the UK would be £10,000. Street posters can add £30,000 easily, and adverts in major music weeklies and monthlies can rack up another £10,000.

But that comes out of that money the label got.. maybe with deductions and charge-backs to the artist... it depends on the contract.

In the physical world, the real winners are not labels... it's retailers. Retailers take the bulk of the money, not the label.

Anyhow... move online.

Suddenly the labels have a chance to get the retailers out of the way. They're ALL sniffing that £12 of money that they weren't making due to middlemen... and all of the labels want it.

What's happening is a process of disintermediation whereby each part of the supply chain is being squeezed out one by one.

What we're not seeing though, is the price benefit of disintermediation being passed on to the end consumer.

The distribution has been taken out... the cost of the product didn't decline.

The manufacturing has been taken out... the cost of the product didn't decline.

The retailers are being squeezed out... the cost of the product isn't declining.

Actually... we're seeing the opposite. The labels like this new world of little effort and great profits, and they're driving prices higher (see iTunes and Apples revenues from the music not the hardware for this).

Then there's you and I. We paid for the bandwidth via our internet connections. We paid for the storage via our hardware. We're paying twice... because we're not seeing the price come down, and we are bearing the cost burden for distribution and marketing.

This is the way to go... but it's unrealistic to suggest that the consumers should pay more, and get less. The cost has to drop dramatically. And the key point is... it can. Take out those middlemen, remove the need for massive infracstructure, and drop the prices inline.

I outlined above how a label only got £1.80 to share with the artist after costs and retailer splits. Now imagine a £5 album via download... they've almost tripled their real income, yet you and I pay less.

That's where we should be.

Strangely, many people in the industry know this very well, they just haven't been forced to do it yet, and quite like the idea that they get all the money and control :)

Re:WTF?

[buro9]

On re-reading, I'll concede maths aren't my strong point ;)

Re:WTF?

[autophile]

IMHO... RTFA?!!! FAQ: WTF?! RIAA, MPAA: TANSTAAFL & AYBABTU (YMMV)!

LMAO & TTYL,

--Rob

The following text has been included to fool the caps/yelling lameness filter. It is not part of this post. Think of it as a sig that actually does something.

Re:WTF?

[Kylere]

IANAL BIPOOTI ( But I Play One On The Internet )

Re:WTF?

[BackInIraq]

Thanks for the education, you'll find my name on various records by...I'm probably safe in saying that the 5 years in the industry gives me the edge in this debate.

Fair enough :). That was a pretty decent bitch-slap.

My point was more along the lines of pointing out how little the entire cost of manufacture/distribution/marketing is in relation to the actual cost paid by the consumer...I hadn't really considered what a large portion of the label's cut it was. But since the price of music (and most forms of entertainment, really) seems to be set at what the market will bear (rather than being linked in any real way to costs), it isn't unreasonable to think that rather than lower prices, the record companies would simply choose to pocket the difference. Or most of it, at least. They really will have to cut the prices a bit to compete with physical CDs...even the 9.99 US that iTMS is asking has proven to be a bit too high for most people (since 2-5 more dollars gets you a physical disc), and they aren't asking to use your hardware. That you are absolutely right about. But I maintain that that has more to do with consumer perception rather than being related to an actual change in their costs, since music qualifies as more of a luxury item.

The only thing you said that I'm not seeing is that they are driving prices higher...I know the UK version of iTMS is a bit pricier, but over here at least prices here have started (very slowly) dropping since downloading caught on...or have at least held steady.

In short, I think the costs and infrastructure in getting music from artist to consumer have not, and will not in the future, have a great deal to do with the price paid at retail for the music (whether the store is physical or virtual). The price will still be set at the absolute highest amount consumers will pay. The only difference will be where the money goes (due to disintermediation) and what that price ends up being (due to the option that digital piracy offers). And I think the the last thing any record label (at least any major one) will *ever* say is "Gee, we're making a lot more money than we used to...you think we should pass some of this on to our customers?" :)

Hope I was a bit less condescending that time...think I was a bit cranky and took it out on you.

(And I don't nitpick over things like math and grammar...at least not online)

Re:WTF?

[Arkaein]

Neither is punctuation. Honestly, quit using ellipses every other sentence, it's annoying.

Re:WTF?

[daikokatana]

At least I am not ignorant of the correct spelling of the verb "breathe". If you want to sound like a wiseguy, at least do it correct. Student.

Anyway, I DID RTFA, and I did read the part about the credits you can gain. But given the fact that a) I've already paid for my bandwidth, b) I assume there will be some credits to be earned while a lot of credits will be needed and c) I am limited in upload capacities via ISP (as with all ISPs in Belgium) I don't think that's a good idea.

I do not run XP without security updates, frankly I do not run XP at all. Trying to link IQ to an OS ? I bet you even lack the required brain cells to spell OS.

Re:WTF?

[tgrimley]

Correctly.

Re:WTF?

[Kylere]

Exactly!

He attacks me for a typing error because I attacked him for an error of logic.

Re:WTF?

[daikokatana]

I DID attack you for a typing error you made.

You attacked me for an error of logic I DID NOT make.

Ooh I can't wait

[Anonymous Coward]

wait so they get to use my bandwidth and charge me per song?

SIGN ME UP!

Re:Ooh I can't wait

[The_Mystic_For_Real]

It's not quite like that, you get credits that are good on the service itself, so drop the sarcasm and get in line.

Re:Ooh I can't wait

[Anonymous Coward]

So, I pay for my bandwidth to distribute their song, and I don't get a penny for the distribution?

Oh, I get the worthless credits, right, almost forgot. Remember airmiles and the inflation of them? First it was 1:1 then 1:5. Department store points (Zellers) - same inflation story. First you needed 150 points for the microwave, then when you saved enough, they said 250, and so on. I have to spend a fortune real fast to get that microwave for 'free'. Same with RIAA credits. They are worthless.

You go in line, I'll sit on the fence.

Re:Ooh I can't wait

[squiggleslash]

No. They charge you per song. You then get the option of getting cheaper songs in future if you offer them some of your bandwidth.

If you decide you don't actually want more music, you don't need to give them bandwidth. Likewise, if you do, but it just isn't worth giving up some of your precious bandwidth for cheaper music, you don't need to either.

It doesn't sound like a bad deal to me, especially if you can earn your credits by leaving your client open when you're asleep and at work.

Re:Ooh I can't wait

[Anonymous Coward]

It doesn't sound like a bad deal to me, especially if you can earn your credits by leaving your client open when you're asleep and at work.

I'm an unemployed insomniac, you insensitive clod!

Re:Ooh I can't wait

[TommydCat]

Don't most ISP TOS clearly state that you cannot resell or otherwise reassign bandwidth?

I know that most ISPs don't care about the occasional webserver or two, but now you're aiding a commercial enterprise that isn't giving the ISP their slice of the pie.

So..

[Turn-X Alphonse]

So it's bit torrent but they charge you for it?

"Here, have a nice MP3, it'll costyou X amount of bandwidth and $1"

Yea I see THAT working.. cough..

Re:So..

[Tune]

OK.
Now read on, you're almost there:

... After a user buys a song from Peer Impact, future buyers get it from that member -- or others who have gotten it in the meantime -- instead of from a central server. Users have to pay for each track they download, but sharing songs they've purchased from Peer Impact earns them credits they can spend on the service.'"

Get it?

Re:So..

[graaah]

Read the text?

Users have to pay for each track they download, but sharing songs they've purchased from Peer Impact earns them credits they can spend on the service.

So if you spend a lot of bandwidth, you get songs for free. Sounds good to me..

Re:So..

[AviLazar]

Except they are not charging you for your bandwidth - that is a charge from your ISP and you cannot reasonably hold a website accountable for your bandwidth if you go and visit them voluntarily.

It's like driving to the mall, and telling the store owner they need to pay you 35 cents per mile. Ridiculous huh? No offense, but so is your statement about the bandwidth cost.

Re:So..

[Peyna]

It's like the Wal-Mart philosophy. You make the customer think they're getting a cheap prices, but really they're just soaking up the costs you normally would have had to bear in other areas, so it appears cheaper but it isn't. (For Wal-Mart this means most of your hourly employees are on government healthcare; with this sytem, it means that the user bears the cost of bandwidth, electricity, time, etc.)

Re:So..

[amliebsch]

It's like driving to the mall, and telling the store owner they need to pay you 35 cents per mile.

I think he was referring more to the part where you allow your bandwidth to be used to further redistribute their material. More akin to the mall store owner telling you that even though you bought their goods, you need to drop a box off at their distribution center, and give the employees a ride home.

That said, they are compensating you in the form of free merchandise (earned by credits), so it's a novel ideal, and might be workable.

Re:So..

[AviLazar]

I think he was referring more to the part where you allow your bandwidth to be used to further redistribute their material. More akin to the mall store owner telling you that even though you bought their goods, you need to drop a box off at their distribution center, and give the employees a ride home. That said, they are compensating you in the form of free merchandise (earned by credits), so it's a novel ideal, and might be workable.

I appologize for not speaking clearly at all. I meant that, however, from my understanding you have the Option of sharing. So it would be more akin to the store owner asking you help sell his product in return for store credit. If you don't want to do it - then don't, if you do, you get a prize.

Re:So..

[Queer Boy]

Except they are not charging you for your bandwidth - that is a charge from your ISP and you cannot reasonably hold a website accountable for your bandwidth if you go and visit them voluntarily.

Ladies and gentlemen, we've reached a new high at Slashdot. Not only can people not be bothered to RTFA, now they can't be bothere to RTF summary.

We're not talking about the cost of bandwidth to DOWNLOAD the song, we're talking about the cost of bandwidth to UPLOAD the song to others!

Duh, P2P application, not download service. RTFS!!!

Re:So..

[AviLazar]

And it's optional. You do not have to do it. Also, you get "paid" to do it. The currency is in the form of credits.

My highspeed connection costs me the same if i use it or do not use it. It would not be hard for me to set my firewall to allow this program (unless the program already does it), access to the internet when i am at work or when i sleep - but not be on when i am at home.

It's not just a matter of reading the article - its a matter of understanding it.

And again, voluntary

Re:So..

[Anonymous Coward]

So retarded.. They are offering you a LEGAL service. God..

double dip

[udderly]

Wow--looks like they've found a way to get paid from one customer for using another customer's bandwidth. Oh well...it's good work if you can get it.

Re:double dip

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, with peer impact you have the option of sharing songs after you buy them. By sharing the song though if another user downloads it off of your computer you earn credit toward future purposes. So you can earn credit by sharing your songs for others to use. Of course if you choose not to then users won't be able to download songs from you.

Re:double dip

[ndtechnologies]

The chances of the RIAA paying the Artists royalties on something like this is very minimal. If nothing else, for the fact that the Artists PRO (SESAC, BMI, or ASCAP) really have no way of getting the information on how many of their tracks have been downloaded...however, we never see anything about that in the news...only how the RIAA is getting ripped off by consumers...hahaha.

That's why I started my own music store, where music sales go directly to the artist. See my sig for more details.

Re:double dip

[Anonymous Coward]

nice bodeans reference.

Re:double dip

[smokin_juan]

So, if I'm some tasteless sap who listens to Britney I can be assured to earn piles of credits with which I can purchase more useless pap. Alternatively, if I listen to something more tastefull yet obscure my crdit amount suffers since fewer people are likely to barrow my collection. Super. How about giving credit for the number of hours my server is up with sharing enabled? I'm not a retail outlet and I'll be damned if I'm going to be held to per unit "sales" quotas to qualify for "quantity" discounts. What this credit system amounts to is reletive punishment for people who don't succumb to hype marketing and machine generated, lowest common denominator music.

No thanks. I think I'll just continue my boycott of commercial music until the RIAA associates decide to pull their heads ALL the way from their asses. It's more satisfying to roll your own anyway.

Re:double dip

[koranth]

are you paying by the gig of thruput?

are you paying by the minute of server access?

or do you pay a flat monthly fee for all the bandwidth you can eat?

it's more accurate to say they're getting paid from one customer for using another customer's ISP's bandwidth. which might very well cause a seismic shift in the ISP business if this thing gets big. but it won't, because it'll be clumsily implemented and only available on certain flavors of Windows, ignoring the entire Mac and Linux communities (and a chunk of the windows community who just can't afford an applicable version of windows and/or the hardware to run same) and the open source community will heave a collective shrug as they release the latest non-tracable alternative to BitTorrent on the masses.

Re:double dip

[Bingo Foo]

It's a peer-amid scheme!

Oh my..

[elemur]

Is the RIAA actually going to try and work with technology? I thought the jamming the head in the sand and yelling aproach was working so well..

This isn't actually a bad idea from a service prospective.. you have your users handling the bulk of the traffic loads, users get songs faster with swarming techniques, and the RIAA gets money. I mean.. the artist.. its all about the artist remember.

I don't know that I would use their service, but trying to work with technology and doing something new is lots better than their previous litigation efforts.

(Of course, I'm assuming this is built on Windows DRM.. ah well.. Are they going to be so restrictive as to DRM limit the files to remove all usefullness to the user? No CD burning, coping to devices.. heck.. copying to my iPod? Oh wait, they said that was Apple's fault for not using an *open* format like MS's..)

Re:Oh my..

[PornMaster]

(Of course, I'm assuming this is built on Windows DRM.. ah well.. Are they going to be so restrictive as to DRM limit the files to remove all usefullness to the user? No CD burning, coping to devices.. heck.. copying to my iPod? Oh wait, they said that was Apple's fault for not using an *open* format like MS's..)

Well, it is Apple's fault that they're not licensing AAC with DRM out. I love the device, but I'm not happy with Apple's behavior in the music marketplace.

Re:Oh my..

[twbecker]

(Of course, I'm assuming this is built on Windows DRM.. ah well.. Are they going to be so restrictive as to DRM limit the files to remove all usefullness to the user? No CD burning, coping to devices.. heck.. copying to my iPod? Oh wait, they said that was Apple's fault for not using an *open* format like MS's..)

I'm a happy iPod owner myself, but the issue here is that while Apple's format (AAC) is open, it's DRM isn't. Remember the whole deal with Real and Apple? The fact of the matter is that no one is going to sell DRM-less songs and Apple refuses to license their implementation. They have no one to blame but themselves.

Re:Oh my..

[Anonymous Coward]

According to the FAQ it is built on Microsofts DRM, do allow you to burn it to cd, but don't support iPod technology.

I haven't seen any mention of the sampling frequency used or the bitrate of the .WMAs.

Re:Oh my..

[AntDaniel]

Could this be a way of avoiding/killing DRM?

Users have to pay for each track they download, but sharing songs they've purchased from Peer Impact earns them credits they can spend on the service.

If the reward system is good enough to make the user 'want' to comply, purchase and share on a crediting system it could just work.

I agree with the parent post, it could be very interesting seeing the RIAA work with technology.

Re:Oh my..

[Alsee]

Apple licensed the Fairplay DRM system from Veridisc.

Of course the entire problem is the DRM stupidity in the first place. You'd be hard pressed to find any player that doesn't play MP3s.

-

Re:Oh my..

[Alsee]

Apple refuses to license their implementation

Apple licensed the Fairplay DRM system from Veridisc.

The fact of the matter is that no one is going to sell DRM-less songs

You mean the members of the RIAA have conspired to exclude any competition or market for online DRM-less sales.

The entire problem is the DRM stupidity in the first place. It is purely counter productive. You can compete with free, but it's just plain STUPID to cripple your own product and attempt to compete with free AND BETTER. All it does is drive away customers. The RIAA simply refuses to accept payment from any customer that wants a proper noncrippled product. Someone who wants an noncrippled download has no coice but to turn to P2P. And as I said, it's purely counter productive, DRM has *never* prevented any song from appearing on P2P. It does not and cannot put any dent in P2P. The DRM does abslutely nothing but screw over legitimate customers and drive away potential customers.

And all the DRM nonsense based on some moronic notion that copyright holders have any expectation or right to be able to restrict NON-INFRINGING activites.

-

Article Text

[Anonymous Coward]

LOS ANGELES -- Four years after it shuttered the original Napster with a legal assault, the recording industry is taking a different approach to online file-swapping: If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.

Recording companies have begun taking steps to legitimize the peer-to-peer technology that lets computer users share songs, video and other files with one another online.

However the U.S. Supreme Court rules in a file-swapping decision expected as early as Thursday, the technology appears irrepressible.

In the last few months, major record labels have signed licensing deals with companies working to field file-swapping services that would block unauthorized files from being traded online.

"There's only two options here," said Michael Goodman, an analyst at The Yankee Group market research firm. "You either license it -- and you find a way to license it and monetize it -- or you don't license it and it gets traded anyway."

Some 330 million tracks were purchased online last year from online stores such as Apple Computer Inc.'s iTunes. But around 5 billion were downloaded from free file-sharing networks, he said.

Meanwhile, recording companies have sued 11,700 computer users for file-swapping. Of those, 2,500 cases have been settled, typically for about $3,000 each.

The Supreme Court is considering whether companies behind unrestricted file-sharing services -- Grokster and Morpheus -- should be liable for copyright infringement. The case's outcome could speed the way for licensed peer-to-peer services.

Even so, it remains to be seen whether those industry-endorsed alternatives can attract people who now tap open file-swapping networks using such programs as eDonkey, BitTorrent and Kazaa.

"When it comes down to it, why is somebody going to pay for something they can get for free?" said Mac Padilla, 21, a student who lives in Los Angeles.

The industry may know the answer at least in part as early as next month, when Peer Impact, one of the licensed file-swapping services, is slated to launch.

Its software can be used to find and purchase tracks from an initial catalog of a half-million songs from all the major labels, said Gregory Kerber, head of Saratoga Springs, N.Y.-based Wurld Media Inc., the firm behind the service.

After a user buys a song from Peer Impact, future buyers get it from that member -- or others who have gotten it in the meantime -- instead of from a central server. Users have to pay for each track they download, but sharing songs they've purchased from Peer Impact earns them credits they can spend on the service.

At launch, at least, Peer Impact will not let users share songs from their own collections.

Another company to sign licensing deals with major and independent record labels is Snocap Inc., which was founded by Napster creator Shawn Fanning.

The company's software is designed to track songs being swapped online and notify record labels when someone tries to share a song that hasn't been licensed for free distribution. Snocap also has a deal with file-sharing software maker Mashboxx to block unlicensed tracks from moving through its network.

Mashboxx is set to launch a beta test version next month, said Wayne Rosso, chief executive for the Virginia Beach, Va.-based company. Rosso, who once headed the company behind the Grokster file-swapping software, says Mashboxx users will be able to search for tracks across peer-to-peer networks, upload them and share those that are not restricted by record labels using Snocap's software.

Through Snocap, the labels will be able to assign usage rules for each track, deciding whether users on Mashboxx or other peer-to-peer networks can listen to a track a few times before they must purchase it, what sort of copy restrictions each file will have, or whether it is michael's or cowbowneal's turn for taco's backside, for example.

Rosso cla

Re:Article Text

[Anonymous Coward]

Through Snocap, the labels will be able to assign usage rules for each track, deciding whether users on Mashboxx or other peer-to-peer networks can listen to a track a few times before they must purchase it, what sort of copy restrictions each file will have, or whether it is michael's or cowbowneal's turn for taco's backside, for example.

Thanks but no thanks

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

I don't actually disagree with the idea (although coming from the RIAA, it certainly feels like Dr. Mengele taking up pediatrics). But I mean, look at the "artists" they propose: Gwen Stefani, Will Smith, 50 cent... I think I'll stay on conventional illegal P2P for now, thank you very much, until they propose music for download.

Re:Thanks but no thanks

[Bimo_Dude]

I'm not going to pay a dollar + bandwidth and get only 50 cent in return ;)

Re:Thanks but no thanks

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

Nice one :-)

Re:Thanks but no thanks

[david.given]

50 cent is even less popular in the UK; here, he's only 27 pence.

Re:Thanks but no thanks

[Turn-X Alphonse]

yea and don't forget e-mail, that way you can be big willy styled too!

Re:Thanks but no thanks

[Bimo_Dude]

Oh gee... thanks

Now I have to clean the coffee off my monitor :-)

Re:Thanks but no thanks

[MattWhitworth]

Although we do have an artist over here called '50 Pence' (with his most famous song - 'In Da Pub'). Talk about price fixing!

Re:Thanks but no thanks

[mobby_6kl]

I'm sure he's more popular in Canada though, he's 61 cent there!

Re:Thanks but no thanks

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to mention that the site is downright nauseating. It reeks of astroturfish attempt to fabricate excitement among sheep that they they can now download utterly bland, mainstream "music" in some as of yet non-existent online community.

"You can have your own record store too!" What the hell does that mean? It means other people will be downloading their content from you. After they pay somebody else. I don't know of too many record stores that hand over their product after the customer pays somebody else.

And then there is the whole RIAA math thing - "You can spend $5 dollars of OUR money on any songs you want!" Right because the label actually has $5 cash removed from their possession when five songs are downloaded.

Ugh.

Re:Thanks but no thanks

[AK Marc]

Well, I'd certainly not pay for them in a manner I can be tracked. After all, listening to them is one thing, but being caught actually paying for them? Nah, I don't want to risk it. I'll stick to the illegal methods.

Re:Thanks but no thanks

[legojenn]

He's worth 60 cent CDN, so he may be more popular in Canada. At the time when the Canadian Dollar was worth only 62 cents US a few years ago, he would have been 80 cent CDN, so his popularity is shrinking here.

Re:Thanks but no thanks

[Anonymous Coward]

Where did you get that, you decimal buddy?
Here, in Buckingham, it is still 65 pennies or 5.14 shillings.

Sincerely yours Queen.

Re:Thanks but no thanks

[jZnat]

He be half the devil with all the numba hoes multiplyin' each other in th' hood.

(666/2 = 333, 3*3*3 = 27)

peer impact is an interesting idea

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems to me it's the first step away from nazi level drm - the idea that you can still sell/trade/share songs afterwards (fair use) is more comparable to status quo in the real word. It's been argued that people just will not go with licensing schemes for music, but rather they take cds as commodity. Who knows, this might actually work

I will file a lawsuit

[Anonymous Coward]

After a user buys a song from Peer Impact, future buyers get it from that member

Can I sue the RIAA for this travesty?

Reasonable...

[Heem]

As long as the prices are low (i'm sure they won't be) and the credits earned for sharing the file are fair, then this sounds like a reasonable compromise.

We get music, legally, and affordably (hopefully). We also have the opportunity to earn credits for using our bandwidth.

They get money, which is all they really want anyway.

Re:Reasonable...

[fbartho]

Your fair argument makes a good point... how long until someone hacks the initial version to rack up credits for a million users downloading a member's initial song... and then downloading the songs available by credit... then the RIAA would sue because you used their program to steal another person's bandwidith?

Re:Reasonable...

[Dachannien]

One thing that would make this system unreasonable is DRM encumbrance. It's obvious that there is/will be DRM with such systems, but how restrictive is it compared to, say, iTMS?

Also, according to the article, there is a "phone home" component to the software, in that it reports unauthorized music sharing to the recording industry. Personally, I don't think I can deal with the possibility of the software I'm using creating a legal liability due to things I have no control over, like bugs, communications errors, etc.

Re:Reasonable...

[kurokaze]

the concept sounds pretty reasonable to me too.. except that instead of credits I'd go a ratios. Buy your initial song(s) and then share them. The number of bytes you share equals the number of bytes you can download for free.

Ah, the good old BBS days...

Re:Reasonable...

[Alsee]

this sounds like a reasonable compromise

No it doesn't.

Aside from what will undoubtedly be absurd pricing, will these songs play in Winamp? No. Will these songs play an any of hundreds of other software and hardware players? No. Will it by possible to alter/mix/play them in any way that they do not specifically provide you? No.
Do they have have some expection to be able to IMPRISON you and me if I write my own software and you and I mangamanage play out songs with it? Yes.

Anyone who claims/expects any right to IMPRISON INNOCENT NON-INFRINGING PEOPLE is NOT REASONABLE.

-

how long

[udderly]

Users have to pay for each track they download, but sharing songs they've purchased from Peer Impact earns them credits they can spend on the service.

And how long will it take until someone figures out a way to manipulate the system to earn the credits without actually sharing? I can see it now--'You have 20,000,000 credits, which is enough to purchase 500,000 songs.'

Re:how long

[Heem]

more like..

"You have 20,000,000 credits, which is enough to purchase 3 songs, but only from this list of one hit wonder bands, from their albums that did not contain said hit."

Re:how long

[Sheepdot]

And how long will it take until someone figures out a way to manipulate the system to earn the credits without actually sharing? I can see it now--'You have 20,000,000 credits, which is enough to purchase 500,000 songs.'

And for those of us that already have most of the common songs? My first day of use may look something like this:

Welcome to Peer Impact! You have downloaded 5 songs for a total of 500 PI bucks! You are currently sharing 13488 songs for a total credit of 3372 PI bucks.

Re:how long

[uniqueCondition]

RTF er.. FAQ
You're allowed to earn up to 10% of your future purchases.

The real hack will be the "client" that taps into the swarm posing as a paying user.

Re:how long

[saider]

Customer: What's a PI Buck?

Seller: It is like money for our service.

Customer: OK, gimme 100 PI Bucks.

(cha ching) Customer goes to download a file.

Message on screen: Sorry, this agent does not accept PI Bucks. Please use Mastercard, Visa, AMEX, or Discover.

Re:how long

[Dracolytch]

Actually, the good thing about this system is that there's no incentive for them to do that kind of crap.

The more GOOD music you have on your system, the more GOOD music is available for people to buy, the more people like the system, the more money they make.

~D

Re:how long

[Haeleth]

And for those of us that already have most of the common songs?

You get to buy them yet again, of course. You may have 12,988 songs on your hard disk, but I bet you don't have them in the right proprietary DRM'd format...

Re:how long

[Sheepdot]

And you don't get to "translate" them to the proprietary DRM'd formate either, I would guess. Which means that this "new technology" is DOA.

Re:how long

[tantrum]

"You have 20,000,000 credits, which is enough to purchase 3 songs, but only from this list of one hit wonder bands, from their albums that did not contain said hit."

More like "you've now got 20,000,000 credits, which is enough to buy five songs from the most selling artists"

Yay! I cant wait, soon I'll have Britney mp3s, oh joy

sorry guys

[kinzillah]

This one makes sense. They get money for the song, you get credits for helping distribute it with which you can buy more songs. As long as the credits required for your free download aren't insane, this is rather well thought out.

Re:sorry guys

[Anonymous Coward]

Why are you sorry?

Re:sorry guys

[LiquidCoooled]

I can quite easily see a footnote being added to the crediting system.

*Credits are only awarded for uploading a complete instance of the song to a single recipient in a single session.

Partial uploading of a song does not count towards your credit balance.

Then they will make the network inherantly dynamic and keep switching to the faster connections ;)

Let me get this straight...

[The Woodworker]

1. Sell music to users
2. Allow them to share for those who have paid for it.
3. Spend every minute of every day refunding money when they downloaded a mislabeled tune on the P2P network.
4. ????
5. Profit
6. RUN!

Re:Let me get this straight...

[BlogPope]

3. Spend every minute of every day refunding money when they downloaded a mislabeled tune on the P2P network.

Because they aren't smart enough to use checksums, etc, right? Even if the source client is hacked, the end client can do a basic checksum/file length/random segment check to confirm the file is the desired file.

Re:Let me get this straight...

[g0dsp33d]

Is that an allusion to this? (see the board).

Re:Let me get this straight...

[Jake Diamond]

Not directly. It originally appeared in South Park and now appears all the time on ./. You can read about it here

Re:Let me get this straight...

[g0dsp33d]

ah, sorry then, I don't have cable. (The company here sucks and I refuse to give them any money)

No iPod Support

[sheriff_p]

No iPod support.

I think they're missing the point slightly here. All the cool kids have iPods, not some 'leenuzx g33kz0rs rule' bulky item from Nomad or Creative, or some other company which has completely failed to impinge on the consciousness of people who are actually having sex with actual real people.

I doubt we'll hear from them again.

+Pete

Re:No iPod Support

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope. You're missing the point. Why try to work support around people who don't know how to use computers? If you're using a mac (or an iPod for that matter) you probably aren't clever enough to get the music working on it anyway, and that's a personal problem.

Pete, you sound kinda jealous. Did a linux geek own your girl's box? lol

I definitely see this service being useful. Maybe next time you shouldn't hop on the cosmetic bandwagon and waste your money on a pink iPod mini.

Re:No iPod Support

[julesh]

I don't get the no iPod support bit:

Peer Impact supports the following file formats:

Audio

* MP3 Audio File (.mp3)

I've played about with iPods before now, and all the ones I've seen play MP3s just fine.

Maybe the thing doesn't integrate with iTunes, but that's not the same as not working with iPods at all.

Re:No iPod Support

[Anonymous Coward]

what I don't get is the "having sex with real actual people" thing, for several reasons:

1) What does that have to do with Music?
2) What does it have to do with iPods?
3) Is that simply the measure of a person these days? The frequency of their sexual encounters? Why not just wear a counter on your arm so that people can tell how often you're getting some?

Frankly, it just shows how much the GP poster is brainwashed by Hollywood.

Re:No iPod Support

[Anonymous Coward]

believe it or not, some people do measure their worth with #3. i have had personal encounters with those people, their sense of self worth is pathetic.

Huh ?

[CmdrGravy]

Why would I want to use this when I can just download music for free off a real P2P network. This makes no sense at all.

Re:Huh ?

[ScentCone]

Why would I want to use this when I can just download music for free off a real P2P network. This makes no sense at all.

Um... so that you're not ripping off the artists that you think you respect (yes, and the companies that those artists have chosen to work with)? Or, so that you don't risk getting slapped with a nice fat lawsuit?

Why pay for anything that someone is offering for sale if you can be quick enough, or tricky enough, or ethically bankrupt enough to just skip out on paying? Good question! Possible answer: because that way you're not a hypocrite for saying you truly like the musician you're slimily getting to entertain you for free.

Re:Huh ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Here is a news flash.. Artists already get ripped off when you buy music. They get so little of the cut that it is disgusting.

As far as lawsuits are concerned, you are still statistically unlikely to get sued or slapped with a fine. With the advent of anonymous P2P networks coming into play, this threat will be a thing of the past.

This is what I do.. I download all the music I like off of free P2P services. Then, if I like the music, I send a $5 check for every track's worth of music I download directly to the artists. The artists definitely do not get this big of a cut when you buy a CD in a store.

Don't go down the road with comparing downloading music to stealing something from a store.. The analogy is flawed and isn't there.

Re:Huh ?

[ScentCone]

Artists already get ripped off when you buy music

You mean, the contracts they sign when they choose a label are actually fraudulent? Or do you mean that the contracts are written well, but that bands like U2 or the Foo Fighters or perhaps the Boston Symphony Orchestra are too dumb to notice that they're not actually getting the percentage that the contract says they'll get. Do you really think that a judge wouldn't hugely penalize a record label, like they do other businesses, for obvious breech of contract?

Or, do you mean that since you don't want to pay $15 for a CD, that you think you'll express your displeasure by making sure that the artist gets nothing.

This is what I do.. I download all the music I like off of free P2P services. Then, if I like the music, I send a $5 check for every track's worth of music I download directly to the artists. The artists definitely do not get this big of a cut when you buy a CD in a store.

First, reply with the URL of a scan of a check, cashed by an artist with a real label deal, showing that you've done this (let alone that you do in continually). You can block out the sensitive stuff, but I'll bet that you probably just fake it up in Photoshop anyway. I call BS on this.

Second, the artist isn't expecting to get $50 for a 10-track CD. They sign a deal that probably gets them a buck or so. Maybe two. They know that, the label knows that. And if the label does their work and gets a couple hundred thousand CDs sold, then the artist can consider themselves as having made an OK living that year - without having to personally handle a bunch of imaginary personal checks, including the ones that bounce.

Re:Huh ?

[CmdrGravy]

Who cares about the artist ? 95% of them are complete junk anyway and all the ones moaning about how downloading is depriving them of a living make more in one day than I do in a year.

I don't especially like musicians so I don't think I am being hypocritical at all, if I thought I could get away with robbing things from shops easily then I would but downloading music has an almost 0% chance of any nasty consequences so I'm quite happy to do that.

Wish I had thought of this

[linsys]

When I first visited this web site, I thought DAMN I wish I would have thought of this, this does really seem like a great idea, but would I use it NO WAY! Do I think lots of people will, SURE DO!

So...

[eSavior]

Not only do I pay for each track but I also donate my bandwidth? What advantage does this have over say itunes? According to the Peer Impact page the sharers get 10% of the purchase price for donating bandwidth. Please note that it devides this amounge ALL of the people it grabs the file from. So really you would be lucky if you get 1% of the price.

So my question is why use this over all the other pay services out there?

Or how about over what the industry really wants you to move from, the free networks?

While I think this is a step in the right direction, they still need more carrot and less stick if they want alot of people off these networks.

Re:So...

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, this doesn't seem like such a bad idea. On the one torrent site I use that keeps track of these things, I have 56 gigacredits (meaning I have uploaded 56GB more than I have downloaded). Even 10% of that makes for a lot MP3s.

If the cost of downloads are reasonable (less than 1/2 of current services) and the selection is big enough this might actually work. I would even consider signing up if it wasn't sponsored by the RIAA.

Re:So...

[LurkerXXX]

So really you would be lucky if you get 1% of the price.

So all you would be giving up is enough bandwidth to download 1/10th of an MP3. In exchange for 1% of the purchase price toward a new MP3. You've probably got plenty of spare bandwith, and can just let it accumulate until you get enough for an occasional free song. It doesn't sound that bad to me. Then again, the only thing I ever listen to is the radio, and that's usually NPR, so what do I know.

Reflections

[myrick]

So the RIAA is at least trying to tap into a fantastic resource for content distribution, albeit five years too late. The problem, as with all current implementations of "legal" online music stores, is that this is going to be too restrictive. As with most /.'ers and most folks in general, if I purchase music, I expect to be able to use it however I like. Most troublesome to the geeks is that it forces Windows and WMA. Most troublesome to the mass market is that it doesn't support the iPod. How can you expect mass-adoption if you don't even support the media player with the largest market share?

This service's restrictions will keep it from being a major player, and until the RIAA gets it that no one will change until they open up their restrictions, piracy will always be huge, and the one music store that supports the most popular player will remain the most popular option (and only option for many) for purchasing legal music.

This market needs competition! Be creative, RIAA!

Re:Reflections

[systemic chaos]

The RIAA can be as creative as it likes, but it won't be successful until it's as easy as search, download, doubleclick after finding it in the massive and unorganized "My Shared Folder," play in shitty musicmatch jukebox that came with your dell. Please note the absence of any prior or integrated payment method. iPod users substitute "massive and unorganized 'My Shared Folder'" with "automatically yet questionably organized 'My iTunes Music' folder."

Re:Reflections

[kpwoodr]

I've looked over the posts thus far, and have found little addressing my biggest fear with this (aside from the obvious).

If such a system were put into place with a wide distribution chain of anonymous users, who is to say that one (and yes I know it would take more than one if using a torrent like architecture) of the said users wouldn't fill his collection with bogus songs? I have to assume that there will be some type of content verification, and though it may take a few days it could likely be broken. Who's to say that if I pay my $1 for a song that I actually get what I paid for. When downloading straight from iTunes or similar, I know with reasonable certainty that I will be getting what I paid for, and if not I know where to go to make sure that my wrong is righted.

I admit I'm still a little ignorant about how this would be implemented, but it seems that the RIAA is so far behind the curve on this one, that instead they should be looking for the next big content distribution method. But I guess if progressive thinking was part of their business model, napster wouldn't be charging a fee, and Kazaa might not be full of spyware.

Re:Reflections

[myrick]

Well, and this is pure, unbridled speculation, it seems that they are using a set format and bitrate (WMA, though I don't know the rate). This means they can an MD5 hash or similar to verify authenticity. I'm aware that MD5s can be spoofed, but I'm not sure how practical it is to do. It's a very legit problem, however, and certainly something that iTunes does not suffer from.

Re:Reflections

[mrchaotica]

This is a solved problem: just download a md5 (or whatever) hash from the store's central server and match the file against it.

Black and white

[Iriel]

It seems like every time the RIAA (or any of their partners) tries to come up with a P2P middle ground, it just ends up sounding more and more rediculous. iTunes is a giant hit with a few other legitimate services gaining popularity, and illegal trade still happens, but all this grey area is sounding really stupid. Either you swap and hope you don't get caught or purchase legally.

I could be wrong, but this doesn't seem like an area that can be easily worked out without splitting into polar opposite capmps. Honestly, a good compromise leaves everyone pissed off. (At least in this situation)

profit!

[Wizard of OS]

1. buy all songs currently in top10 from your 100mbit university connection
2. wait untel the rest of the world downloads them from you, where you earn credits
3. you buy more songs, but now with the credits
4. people download more songs from you
5. repeat step 3
6. profit! (or at least, free legal songs).

For RIAA, this can only work if they give very little credits to uploaders.

Re:profit!

[m50d]

No, they just need to have some sort of "margin". An upload can never be worth more than a song. But if they let you get one free song for every two you upload, or even 9 for every 10 you upload, it could work very well for them.

Re:profit!

[telbij]

Maybe if you're the first one on the service, but the top10 will be bought up pretty quick and your share of the credits will rapidly approach 0.

On the other hand, if you could figure out the musical tastes of specific demographics such as modem users and people who are paranoid about leaving their P2P client up then maybe you'd be onto something...

Re:profit!

[Peyna]

For RIAA, this can only work if they give very little credits to uploaders.

So long as the credit is less than the cost of downloading one song, they're making money.

If 1 song costs $1, and you got a $0.90 credit for every upload

$1 - You downloaded the song
$10 - 10 people download the song from you
($9) - You spend your free credits on 9 songs

They made $11 on 20 downloads. Continue ad inifitum and it's still making money, considering the costs on their end of running the system are pretty minimal.

For every "credit" you get, they already made money off the person downloading from you to give you that credit.

Re:profit!

[Anonymous Coward]

wait until the rest of the world downloads from you?
Nope. Sorry. It's USA only.

Re:profit!

[Weh]

that's not p2p, just a good old pyramid scheme...

This makes my physically ill.

[ZackSchil]

How is it even possible that the RIAA things this is a good idea?! This is quite possibly the stupid thing I've ever heard of. In fact, I think I've heard this buisiness plan before. Does anyone recall the Scour Network? Basically it was a napster-era general use peer to peer service that got taken down and ressurected as a pay service. Basically, users had to pay to use lame content that they hosted themselves for others to download. You're paying a service to use your own connection for them. The idea of being compensated for this with a points system is laughable. People share music on peer to peer services because they love music and they want everyone to enjoy the songs that they have in their collection. People download songs on peer to peer networks because it's free, convenient, and offers a great selection.

What the RIAA has done is taken the bad parts about legitimate music (paying, poor selection, hassle) and merged them with the downsides of Peer to Peer file sharing (slow download speeds, having to upload on an asymmetrical connection). The rewards system seems to be a new concept but overall, they've taken the downsides of two distribution methods and are sure to fail, as others have in the past using this same exact strategy. Sometimes I wonder if they live in their own little magic world where ideas like this sound less retarded, because that's the only logical explanation I can come up with for the creation of this service.

Re:This makes my physically ill.

[CFTM]

Alright Chicken Little...sorry obligatory troll.

Anyways, I'm pleased the RIAA is at least making a stab, even if it is a poor one, at joining the internet revolution [I mean Gore only invented it nine years ago!]. It's not perfect and lots needs to be done but the sky is not falling :)

Re:This makes my physically ill.

[linsys]

How does this make you "physically ill"???

The RIAA has some stupid idea and you get sick over it, common, either you are: Nerd Boy or you are just a drama queen.

Re:This makes my physically ill.

[Shihar]

I have read dozens of posts complaining that this idea sucks, but I have yet to hear someone put out a better plan. You currently have all you can eat DRM sites, pay per download sites, and now P2P pay per download with credits for providing bandwidth. Short of declaring that piracy is legal and anyone can download whatever they want for free, what exactly is it more that you could possibly want?

I personally have just stopped paying for music. If I can't get it for free, I don't get it. I don't pirate, but I sure as hell don't pay a dollar a song or shell out $15 for a CD I may or may not like. That said, I am curious as to what it is you want out of the RIAA. They want to make money, you want as much music as possible for little or no cost. What is your comprimise?

Re:This makes my physically ill.

[ZackSchil]

I have no problem with the iTunes music store, especially since no steps have been takin in quite a while to hinder people from decrypting songs purchased there. I have no issue paying for music but this buisiness model is stupid and has failed before.

Re:This makes my physically ill.

[ZackSchil]

I suppose it makes me ill in the same sense that a video of a man filleting his penis might make you sick. They're making obvious and painful mistakes. Not only that, they're one of the more powerful political lobbies in the US. These morons making these mistakes are the same guys who are influencing our laws.

Re:This makes my physically ill.

[kurokaze]

geez.. at least check out the website first:

Q: What can I do with the music that I buy on Peer Impact?

A: You can store your music in your Peer Impact(TM) Library, burn the music to a CD, or transfer it to a portable device. Peer Impact enables all of the same flexibility as the popular pay services with a very unique twist; you can now share that music with other members to earn Peer Cash(TM)

Re:This makes my physically ill.

[I_can_not_believe_I_]

I think the parent has hit the idea on the head, don't run a pay per song service over P2P, run a subscription/"all you can eat" service over P2P. This way incentives can even be thrown in to have servers push popular content on your machine (as opposed to only offering what you've bought). This way the content provider can pro-actively spread load across the network and improve d/l speeds, and people get rewarded based on u/l bandwidth supplied and storage space supplied. The only downside is the monthly bill will fluctuate, but at least it will shrink, not grow. The real benefit I see with the "all you can eat" strategies (at least from the consumer prospective, not necessarily the record company) is that it allows, and possibly encourages people to explore new music, and hopefully break the top 40 stranglehold on music we currently have.

Re:This makes my physically ill.

[mrchaotica]

Who said we have to agree to a compromise? I want the RIAA to die, and I want to buy music directly from the artist.

Re:This makes my physically ill.

[Alsee]

I have yet to hear someone put out a better plan.

Simple. Buy out AllOfMP3.COM and maybe triple the prices.

You can very well compete with free by offering a valuble product and a fast easy useful service. It is dumb to wildly inflate prices while trying to compete with free. It is massively *stupid* to deliberately cripple your own product while price gouging and attempting to compete with free AND BETTER. Using DRM accomplishes exactly nothing productive. It has never kept a single song off of P2P. The only thing DRM accomplishes is to screw over and drive off legitimate customers.

And there never would have been the huge P2P explosion in the first place had the music industry instituted exact the system I suggest nearly a decade ago. Had the RIAA not conspired to deny any legitimate online sales at all. Had the RIAA not imposed a market vacuum for over half a decade. Markets abhor a vacuum just as much as nature does. The RIAA was faces with an obvious and massive demand and refused to serve that demand. Refused to accept any payment from anyone for any online purchase at all for over half a decade. Naturally that denied demand fueld a grey/black market. The RIAA CREATED the P2P explosion. Yes P2P would still have appeared, but it would not have grown the way it did, and it would never have received the enormous development it did, and legal actition against infringment in the far smaller and more primative P2P universe would have had a far bigger impact.

The RIAA, by conspiring to commit market abuses, by attempting to deny and control the market, the RIAA CREATED P2P as we know it today. When you try to abuse the market, natural market forces often turn around and bite you in the ass. The RIAA should simply have offered the product the market wanted.

-

Re:This makes my physically ill.

[Shihar]

Err, the reason why this entire mess exists is because artists sign up with producers. Sure, you can want to buy from the artist, but that isn't really an option if the artist already signed away his soul to a publisher. The reason why artist sign up with publishers is because they can get the equipment the artist needs and market their stuff.

So, you can certainly cut out the producer... once you figure out a way to fund the initial cost of producing an album. Don't get me wrong, I am all for cutting out the middle man, but the middle man is there for a reason. He is the guy with the money. Cut him out, and someone else needs to fund the artist.

That leaves two options that I can easily see. Either people agree to pay for the album before it exists (stupid), or the artist takes out a loan and stakes his credit line that he is going to be able to pay it back. Someone has to taken on the risk... hence why we have an RIAA in the first place. Artists don't want to take on the risk. If you have a better system, I am all ears.

Good thing P2P isn't illegal

[Sinistar2k]

Wow... It's a good thing they weren't able to get P2P outlawed or else they'd not be able to use this distribution method.

I think it's encouraging that they're trying to find solutions that don't simply result in the wholesale destruction of technologies.

Check this out

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

From the Peer Impact site:

For a limited time, we're giving away $5 worth of free music to our newest beta members.

How can they give away $5 worth of something that's free? And also, since it's free, I can share it on regular P2P, right?

Re:Check this out

[julesh]

Simple; they're giving away an infinite amount of it. Hey everyone! Infinite free music over at PeerImpact!

So not only do they want to charge us...

[NoNeeeed]

... but they want US to provide THEM with the infrastructure to do it.

That's like a supermarket selling you oranges, but making you pick them up from the supplier yourself.

At least with iTunes I know that some of the price of a track goes towards maintaining servers, bandwidth etc.

If this service is not significantly cheaper than iTunes and the other centralised services then they are taking the piss.

But then who am I kidding, of course it won't be.

Paul

Re:So not only do they want to charge us...

[ZackSchil]

That's like a supermarket selling you oranges, but making you pick them up from the supplier yourself.

No, it's more like the supermarket charging you to sell their oranges. Sure, you get to eat a few on the job but in the end, you're paying them to work there.

Re:So not only do they want to charge us...

[NoNeeeed]

Thanks, that was what I was failing to get at.

It's just one of those days

Paul

A step in the right direction - Maybe

[KarmaOverDogma]

While I see this, in principle, as a step in the right direction, it is the details that will make or break just how good of a deal this seems to be for the customer (notice I did not say "consumer").

Specifically, by what specific mechanism is the customer given credit for sharing the bandwidth load? How much credit per KB/MB/GB shared? Can they use these credits on all items, or just certain ones (e.g. loser/junk/sale items)? When do the credits expire? How many members/custmers will be allowed to participate, and is there a fee for being allowed to do so?

I am not an **AA fan, but if they really are intent on working with file sharing technology, then they may be able to avoid becoming dinosaurs. Kudos for the effort, though, if it is a sincere one.

That's just effing great

[Anonymous Coward]

Now the RIAA and it's constituent record companies want to give me viruses and spyware?

And besides, don't they know they're not going to make any money from this?

bkd

still doesnt help those who arent into pop music

[cyclomedia]

let's face it, p2p networks are stuffed full of britney spears and general pop crap that us old gippers just cant stand. and i havent been to itunes ever but i doubt very much that any of these systems will help me get hold of copies of the complete works of the four tops, for example. i'm having slow but limited success in this area with the occasional scouring of charity shops and buying said albums for 50p a time. something that probably would break todays license agreements and/or be made impossible with the advent of DRM if i were to attempt the same electronically. i expect the same will be true of movies too. yeah great bandwith, sharing, download dvd copies legally yay. films with j-lo in? easy to get... 50s japanese samurai epics? doubtful. so basically i'm either condemned to follow the corporate brainwashing and join the herd or physically track down hardcopy while it's still available/legal. i cant remember what my point was,now, darnit!

Lookie!

[SlashDread]

- All of the crap from p2p.
- None of the goodness.
- DRM on top.

This will be reaaaaal popular.

Re:Lookie!

[PhYrE2k2]

That's exactly the problem. The music you download will be DRM'd to hell. If it was unencombered, sign me up... or since it'd have to be in the software (as you can't brand the MP3 file on your own machine because others get it) I see a lovely patch coming out in the 'export from media library' function... though then I see FORCED protocol changes and new releases every month... Oh that'll be fun.

-M

Re:Lookie!

[julesh]

- All of the crap from p2p.

Not sure about that. The big problems with P2P are:

1. Getting online on a decentralized network. The network only has to be decentralized because it's illegal, this network only trades in authorised files so it's perfectly legal, hence the problem doesn't exit.

2. Getting bad files. You can't, because they're only allowing upload/download of authorised files, so the content is under central control -- you *can't* find a bad file on this network. Unles you count those Brittney MP3s.

- None of the goodness.

Depends on what you think is good. This is probably better than most other legal download services, so if you're not willing to infringe copyright, then it's good.

- DRM on top.

According to the FAQ, they'll be providing MP3s (among other format). I don't know of any mechanism that can add DRM to an MP3 file.

This will be reaaaaal popular.

Yeah, I think it will. It's a lot better than iTMS, which is very popular.

nifty

[.killedkenny]

Peer Impact users can earn up to 10% of the price of shared tracks by becoming "NoiseMakers", music activists who pester others in chat rooms, email, message board postings, etc.

IIRC

[nsasch]

My cable ISP has something in their TOS that says I can not use my connection for profit (making money for my bandwidth). According to that, there's no way I can use this P2P legally if I get credits for my bandwidth which can be used to purchase things which normally cost a set amount.

Re:IIRC

[Anonymous Coward]

So you can get booted off for using eBay?

Re:IIRC

[AK Marc]

You can't resell your bandwidth. This scheme essentially resells your bandwidth to the RIAA.

Re:IIRC

[RevengeOfPoopJuggler]

It's like at Chuck E Cheese, you pay $10 to win 100 tickets so you can "buy" a toy worth about $0.10. I'm not sure this would fit in the traditional definition of "profit", unless of course you are Chuck E Cheese....

Re:IIRC

[Pollardito]

if you spend your credits on Britney Spears tracks there's no way they can claim that you profited

Re:IIRC

[Anonymous Coward]

I can see why someone on crack would think you're redundant, because due to threshold they can't see you replied to some AC's question about is selling stuff on e-bay would viloate TOS agreements. but frankly you've ben wronged by being downmodded, I just hope you get justice in m2.

Interesting...

[It doesn't come easy]

Apparently, not all uses of p2p technology are illegal after all...someone send Senator Hatch a note on this, will ya?

Wow- an actually interesting idea

[edremy]

While I'll be really interested in seeing how this works in reality, the basic idea is quite clever.

Since you get "credits" for letting people download from you, the P2P leech problem simply goes away- *everyone* not on dialup is going to want to be a server. The RIAA/record labels will spend close to 0 on bandwidth- a few seed copies and purchase info is all they need.

Presumeably they'll have some way to make sure only good copies stay on the network, thus removing the whole "I can't get the entire album at a decent bitrate, and Track 3 is all messed up" problem so common in current P2P.

If they get their entire catalog out fast, they could also return to the good old days of having a massive variety of stuff to sample from. This is still the problem with iTunes- obscure stuff just doesn't exist yet for whatever reason. Here you dump off one copy of some wierd goth/emo/trance/metal hybrid from Eastfarkistan and you'll get a few people to host it.

Of course, being the major album labels, they'll probably only seed the latest copies of Jessica Simpson and (insert latest dead rapper) at 64 kbit/second while managing to use 1MB/sec of bandwidth for DRM checks, but we'll see.

Re:Wow- an actually interesting idea

[Anonymous Coward]

This actually brings up a more interesting point. Since your credits are based on users who download AFTER you, it will become important not only to grab that hit song right away, but to grab only potentially popular music. The economic model discourages purchase of obscure (read: good) stuff. So, I hope they still have lots of bandwidth themselves.

Re:Wow- an actually interesting idea

[Zordak]

Shouldn't be a problem if they offer some obscure stuff you like. All the teenagers will be busy downloading Jessica Simpson from each other, and the main servers will be wide open for you.

Re:Wow- an actually interesting idea

[microbrewer]

Im a beta tester of peer Impact and pretty clued up on how it works .

If you have obsucre content you get more credit if its just you and the server and someone downloads that content you get 4c .

If people are downloading popular content theres more sources therefore you provide less upload so you recive less Peercash. the algorithm has really been worked out to make a fair and equitable situaation for all content on the network.

Re:Wow- an actually interesting idea

[edremy]

This actually brings up a more interesting point. Since your credits are based on users who download AFTER you, it will become important not only to grab that hit song right away, but to grab only potentially popular music. The economic model discourages purchase of obscure (read: good) stuff. So, I hope they still have lots of bandwidth themselves.

I'm not sure this is a problem. Yes, Everyone is going to run out and get the latest hits, but so many people will do so that the value will rapidly go to zero since you'll be one of a million others.

On the other hand, if you're one of five sources for ObscureBand00, you'll get a (much) lower initial payout but you'll continue to get a small, steady stream.

It would be nice if the program had some sort of rank algorithm- start at the oldest file available if it has bandwidth, then move to others if you're getting more than 3 downloads on that file. The first person to get ObscureBand00 up will get a nice constant income-it would give a *huge* incentive to find new, interesting bands and be the first to host them.

DRM

[argoff]

My impression is that the next generation of stuff being pushed by the *AA is going to be much cheaper and offer much more incentive to use. But lets make no mistake about it, a pirannah painted pink and fluffy is still a pirannah. This is only the industries attempt to ease people into using DRM technologies at any cost. Once they get the noose arround your neck, you can be sure that it will slowly, but certainly tighten.

privacy, anyone?

[rhesuspieces00]

What I really want is a convenient way for the RIAA to keep track of every song I download, when and how long I am online, who downloads it from me, and how often. Yes, that definitely sounds like a service I would like to pay for. Sign me up.

Supreme Court

[jasonmicron]

From TFA so it is not off-topic:

The Supreme Court is considering whether companies behind unrestricted file-sharing services -- Grokster and Morpheus -- should be liable for copyright infringement.

Do the labels think that the Supreme Court has any say in the online music world or technology? Sure it can regulate hardware manufacturers, developers and programmers but it can't regulate the use of the software.

Whatever the supreme court decides will already be benign when they reach a decision. New technology will be out or older technology more utilized (such as Usenet or private FTP servers). I say bring it because the only people that are going down are the ones that punch their hardest into thin air.

Re:Supreme Court

[Dhalka226]

Whatever the supreme court decides will already be benign when they reach a decision.

Tell that to the people sued into the ground if the Supreme Court decides that companies making this software are indeed liable for infringement from its use. The Supreme Court has amazing authority and can easily release a ruling--binding on the lower courts--that is so broad that it encompasses that new technology in addition to the two specific programs under consideration.

Yes, there will always be ways to swap music, but that hardly makes the decision benign. Usenet, FTP, IRC and the like are great for the /. crowd. Joe User, who makes Napster-style applications successful by his use of it, isn't likely to know about or deal with most of those. Not to mention the fact that anything that has become big enough for the average computer user to hear about it is probably big enough to be traced to somebody who can be sued into the ground.

Re:Supreme Court

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to mention the fact that anything that has become big enough for the average computer user to hear about it is probably big enough to be traced to somebody who can be sued into the ground.

At which point the bits composing that software will evaporate from everybody's harddrive? The cat has left the bag. I'm sure the RIAA will try and get as much money out of the makers of Kazaa as possible, but once they've destroyed the company, Kazaa will still be there.

Re:Supreme Court

[Alsee]

If the Supreme Court rules against Grokster and Morpheus then the "next VCR", the "next iPod", the "next BitTorrent", none of them will be developed. None of them will be made available to you and me. Companies won't risk liability for introducing new technology, and those that do will get sued into bankruptcy even if they would eventually win in court. Non-corporate development generally gets killed off with the first Cease&Desist letter, much less the first court appearance on a mere preliminary injunction hearing.

If the Supreme Court screws around with the Betamax rule then progress and innovation will be strangled.

It will be anything but benign.

-

no, thanks

[lovebyte]

Reading the FAQ gives plenty of reasons not to use this service:
- No ipod support: No, unfortunately Peer Impact(TM) does not support iPod technology at this time.
- Songs format: Songs purchased in Peer Impact(TM) are provided in Windows Media Application format (WMA) and are protected via Microsoft DRM.
- Firewall: If your PC is protected by a firewall, you can still act as a source of content to other users and earn Peer Cash. However, PCs seen as firewalls can only act as a source to non-firewalled users, never to other firewalled PCs. Therefore, to MAXIMIZE YOUR EARNING POTENTIAL, you should really make an effort to open your firewall.

Great advise there guys!

Re:no, thanks

[Peyna]

No ipod support: No, unfortunately Peer Impact(TM) does not support iPod technology at this time.

Perhaps the converse of this is the real problem?

Re:no, thanks

[Fulkkari]

Those reasons are good, but IMHO the greatest reason not to use commercial P2P services is not technical: why would I give away my upstream bandwidth so that companies may profit from it?

Not going to happen. I'll stick to iTMS.

Re:no, thanks

[BurntNickel]

I'm not sure in what direction you are going with this. Are you suggesting that the iPod needs to support Windows Media?

Re:no, thanks

[Peyna]

I understand the arguments for why iPod doesn't support certain formats; but the bigger question is, should the content producer be the one putting everything out in 10 different formats to satisfy all of the different products that can use the content; or should the products making use of the content be the ones that simply support as many formats as possible so as to make things easier on the content producers?

Which of these options is best for all parties involved, including the consumer?

I don't know the answer, but I think it is an interesting question.

Interesting but limited

[eno2001]

From their FAQ:

Q: In what file format does music purchased from Peer Impact come, and how is it protected?

A: Songs purchased in Peer Impact(TM) are provided in Windows Media Application format (WMA) and are protected via Microsoft DRM. Up to three licenses are available for each song purchased.

This, pretty much, eliminates non-Windows OSes at the moment. Since they are doing this to make money, I'm guessing they'll want the biggest possible audience which means Windows users. Since new Macs based on Intel can run Windows (I wonder if Jobs knew about this angle?) natively, this means Mac users won't be excluded as long as they buy a copy of Windows. (I wonder if Apple will have a special bundle to sell dual boot Macs?) For the rest of us *nix, users I'm willing to bet we're out of luck unless we run Windows in a VM or Wine gets some really good support for this. I'm also not too sure of how the transfer to a portable player works. They list a ton of players, and mine (Rio Karma) IS listed. But since they are targetting Windows user, they're going to probably use the most idiot proof method which means USB instead of ethernet. (I use my Karma with the ethernet connection and the Java music manager) But don't despair. Most people who choose to run *nix tend to have far more unique musical tastes and it's likely that this service won't carry those kinds of artists. What's really needed is a music service for the artist's artist. I just turned on to Efterklang which I'm certain that only some of our European Slashdotters may be familiar with. Who the hell listens to Mariah Carey?

Re:Interesting but limited

[isotpist]

"Since new Macs based on Intel can run Windows (I wonder if Jobs knew about this angle?) natively, this means Mac users won't be excluded as long as they buy a copy of Windows. (I wonder if Apple will have a special bundle to sell dual boot Macs?)"

Oh yeah, I'm gonna load up Windows on my mac so I can use some shitty music store software instead of iTunes, and download music that doesn't play on an iPod.
That said, if another music store starts doing better than ITMS, and supports macs, then I think Jobs would have no trouble letting iPods/iTunes support WMA.

Re:Interesting but limited

[Anonymous Coward]

>Who the hell listens to Mariah Carey?
Mr. Carey?

From the FAQ: Open your firewall?

[MrRogers2]

From the FAQ (bolding mine, of course):
Q: Will Peer Impact work from behind a firewall?
A: If your PC is protected by a firewall, you can still act as a source of content to other users and earn Peer Cash. However, PCs seen as firewalls can only act as a source to non-firewalled users, never to other firewalled PCs. Therefore, to MAXIMIZE YOUR EARNING POTENTIAL, you should really make an effort to open your firewall. To determine whether you are seen as a firewalled user or not, go to "Preferences" under the Tools menu. Choose the "Transfers" option; the last item listed says "Behind Firewall". If this says "Yes", you should open your firewall so that you may be used as a source by other firewalled PCs.
...

Not even new

[AlexCV]

Back in 2001, I worked for a company that tried to put out a system called Flipr (yeah, original name...) that would have pretty much worked the same way.

Except that we never could license any content. We were proposing royalties that were better then what iTunes offers and no record labels wanted to even talk to us. We would have loved even to have a small subsection of the pop music crap out there if it meant we had content more then 25 peoples wanted to download.

A Modest Proposal

[ZackSchil]

1.) Set up service with the downsides of buying music (having to pay, shitty RIAA-only selection)
2.) Match that with the downsides of peer to peer file sharing (having to upload, disorganization, no physical cd)
3.) Slap on some draconian Microsoft DRM for good measure
4.) ???
5.) Chapter 11!

Note: Step 4 may or may not be an earthquake caused by everyone on the planet going "huh?!" at the same time.

Also, I needed a title for the post so I made a random one and now all I can think of is eating babies.

Re:A Modest Proposal

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

Just think about it:

Actual baby-back ribs.

Re:A Modest Proposal

[PantsWearer]

For those who don't get the reference to eating babies, "A Modest Proposal" is a satirical essay by Jonathon Swift.

A Modest Proposal

Re:A Modest Proposal

[Alsee]

now all I can think of is eating babies.

Yep, RIAA stories have that effect on me too.

-

Weedshare already does this

[3cents]

Checkout weedshare.com because Peer Impact seem to be ripping off their business model from what I can tell.

until...

[simpl3x]

...they change the licensing agreement!

and wasn't the point of p2p to create diversity past the 500,000 songs on the "networks?" isn't the idea that a sigle point of access couldn't handle the download requests? is this really the case?

what a drag!

_USE_ the users?

[PhYrE2k2]

It sounds like the industry wants to use our hard-earned bandwidth, and not provide us a benefit for it. It's very simple- They don't need the bandwidth and infrastructure costs of sending all of those files, so there's no limitation to how much crap they can send our way at whatever quality they choose.

This is just a way to milk consumers. I know most North American broadband users just don't care, but what about dialup? What about metered T1's? What about business users who pay by volume or sustained transfer? This is a lame way to put the burden of cost on someone else.

The problem has always been the reliability of some peer-2-peer when you are paying for it- is the transaction when you start getting the file? when you finish downloading it? when it verifies? What if I cancel it with a second left?

-M

Mod up - My thoughts exactly...

[Seng]

A commercial service using bandwidth of its paying subscribers? That's a crock... That's right on par with the adware that "hosts" ads from infected machines...

Re:Mod up - My thoughts exactly...

[TLSPRWR]

But you get 'credits' for sharing! Your measily cash and bandwidth are turned into wonderful credits to purchase more of their music! How could you be so blind to this wonderful opportunity?

Re:Mod up - My thoughts exactly...

[rwise2112]

I wonder what ISPs will think about this? Running servers is against the users agreements for most ISPs, but they usually turn a blind eye for personal use. However, we are now talking about using bandwith for commercial use, which is a whole different thing - and of course ISPs ans the XXIA have not been too happy with each other lately.

I also think the title is misleading - it's more like they are using P2P not supporting it.

Spyware?

[hcdejong]

What would prevent the RIAA from including a routine that searches your entire HD for music files, then reports the list to the RIAA/bills you automatically for all songs that you have no license for?

Re:Spyware?

[oneiron]

Oh... I don't know... Common sense?

Re:Spyware?

[hcdejong]

Imagine a more subtle approach: thanks to their filesharing app, the RIAA can link IP addresses to name/address data. Then mine IP addresses from other p2p networks, and rather than having to go through the tedious process of getting the name/address data out of the ISP, the RIAA can just look it up in their own database.

Re:Spyware?

[MacWiz]

Please cite one example of the RIAA using common sense.

iPod support?

[Pranjal]

One of the questions in the FAQ says that it supports MP3, wav etc. Then it goes on to say iPod and iTunes. I'm confused. MP3's and wav files can be played on my iPod, so what's the big fuss?

So, what's the credit for obscure, non-pop music?

[Anonymous Coward]

If I pay a buck for some obscure 90s song, I guess I'm SOL on the "credit for upload" front, eh?

The ultimate business plan

[orionware]

1) Find suckers (musicians) and ride their coattails giving them a palty percentage of the profits.

2) Enhance those profits by selling those wares to the buying public using their neighbors resources as a distribution channel

3) Rinse.. Repeat.

ATTENTION!!!

[ufpdom]

nytimes.com reports that hell has frozen over. Carry on

Negative Example

[boyfaceddog]

When this fails (and it will after it shipwrecks against Steve's Unstoppable Machine - iTune$)won't the RIAA just come out and say - "Hey, we can't get this to work and look at all of the content we have. Music downloads just don't work." I see legeslation based on the failure of this product.

no thanks

[l3v1]

In general, I don't really like the idea of paying any money for low quality music (meaning lower than at least 320 kbps mp3 quality). Added to that I won't pay for no company who sells only wma, I don't want no wma. Then add to the above that in the hypothetical case that I bought music online, I'd very much better give my money to Apple than feeding the mouths of the RIAA&co., the organization which constantly keeps climbing up on my most-hated list.

And this point-based bandwidth sharing reward system is also something don't really like.

All in all, I find the whole thing crap on the rocks, and until I see something which I'll find a bit more appealing I'll stick with my disk buying habits combined with the occasional free supplies.

Incompetent people usually are jealous

[FreeUser]

Nope. You're missing the point. Why try to work support around people who don't know how to use computers? If you're using a mac (or an iPod for that matter) you probably aren't clever enough to get the music working on it anyway, and that's a personal problem.

Pete, you sound kinda jealous. Did a linux geek own your girl's box? lol

More likely, a linux geek took his girl.

Seriously, though, I use a Rio Karma and love it. It may not be the media-darling trendy come-in-a-variety-of-candyassed-colors but targets DRM crippled musical rentware, but it does play my ogg-vorbis files, my mp3 files, my converted AAC files (I bought one tune at iTunes before discovering allofmp3.com and never looking back), and would play any WMA files, if I could be bothered to get any (I can't).

Ipods may look nice, but IMHO the Rio Karma has a UI that is essentially just a good (if not as trendy), and unlike the iPod, it plays a superior, unencumbered format I make extensive use of. Best of all, it works seemlessly with my Linux box, my Mac OS laptop, and the occasional window box I plug it into at a freinds ... thanks to java.

BTW - My wife thinks knowledgabe geeks are extremely desirable. Clueless computer-illiterate iPodites and Microsofties are the last thing she would ever be attracted to ... and demographics seem to indicate that this is a wider trend.

Perhaps the iPodites and Microsofties keep talking about slashdot readers as sexually incompetent not because of Linux and FreeBSD folks' experience, but because of their own. :-)

dowload credits == frequent flyer miles

[sgt scrub]

I see the credit earned for downloads attribute going the way of frequent flyer miles. They were great until the airlines revoked them.

goddamned stupid corporate motherfuckers

[Thud457]

This is just like Microsoft's plans for Avalanche. The stupid greedheads think YOU should pay to defer their bandwith costs. Without requiring any of the community involvement that self-organizing ("(f|F)ree", "natural", FOSS, whatever..) networks engender. These corporate types just don't get the whole concept of file SHARING . They want to do to Bittorrent what they did to Napster and I say the lot of them can go stuff their heads in a goat.

Greedy SOBs

[djdole]

Anyone else notice how on their webpage their selling point is that it "turns every PC into a record store... where you're the owner"
Hmm can we say MISLEADING?!?
So since I'm the owner of the PC store created by EVERY PC huh? ...Well then jeeze,... I guess I'm gonna be rich! Oh wait... there's the second misleading part... Record store owners make money off the music they sell, and I won't see a red cent for sharing my purchased (licensed) music & bandwidth.

Here's the best thing to do if you want music cheep or free:
Find a used CD store. Buy used CDs cheap. Rip & resell. Resell to a different used CD store, especially if you can find one that will buy them back for more than you paid. Profit.

Re:still doesnt help those who arent into pop musi

[Anonymous Coward]

FYI, iTunes has 16 full albums and one partial album of the Four Tops.

gee golly wilikers!

[nilbog]

Hopefully internet companies will follow suit with this new business model. You get your own backbone connection to the internet, and then they just charge you for the right to get bills from them. I could see a benefit for gas companies too - you provide your own gas, but you pay them to let you look good standing by their pump.

This is seriously retarded. Wow, I get to pay for music and I get to act as their server! Whats to keep someone from switching songs around and ending up charging people for the wrong song?

And this stops what?

[nurb432]

This would only stop the 'uninformed', as people that want to trade in copyright infringement materials will just use other networks..

And in time, those files would filter back to the 'consumer' networks. Back to square one.

Credits?

[webzombie]

Peer Impact shares a portion of the purchase price (up to 10%) with the member(s) who shared their content and their resources.

Ok... so if the songs cost a buck... and lets say they give you 5% of that is 5.

- 5 per song you share
- share 20 songs and get ONE song FREE

And you have to download an application that I'm pretty sure is just loaded with all kinds of wonderful hooks to monitor if not cripple any other P2P application except Peer Impact.

And it's NOT iPOD compatible... iPOD users are about the ONLY people who buy music.

Hmmm... no thanks.

holy duh, batman

[nilbog]

It's not the way p2p networks are set up that makes people want to use them, it's the fact that they can get free music. Putting an online store into the format of a p2p network doesn't make it cool, because it negates the point or reason that people use p2p. Wow, now I can get crappy speeds AND I get to pay for it!

MS DRM

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps I am a little in the dark over the DRM, b ut is this actually going to work? For example, somebody downloads a song from this network, what is preventing it from being shared on another (free) network? Sure, the file has DRM, but the file will still work for Windows users, and will probably be higher quality.

Since the files are being distributed by the users, it's safe to say the files have no identifiable information contained in them, is it not?

In my opinion, this will simply increase the number of good files on P2P networks.

The songs still have to come from somewhere, but now instead of buying the CD, ripping and encoding it... then sharing it... and hopefully it sounds OK...

Now, we can buy only the good songs, and hope others do the same... a few songs here and there... share them with a different P2P client, in exchange for the few other random songs that others have paid for (without having to buy the whole CD to rip!)

Then, there is the other advantage... the more companies that side with one DRM implementation, the more people there will be working to break that DRM... and the easier it will become... making everything free again?

Not really

[Anonymous Coward]

How can you expect mass-adoption if you don't even support the media player with the largest market share?

From the PeerImpact website:


Q: What can I do with the music that I buy on Peer Impact?

A: You can store your music in your Peer Impact(TM) Library, burn the music to a CD, or transfer it to a portable device. Peer Impact enables all of the same flexibility as the popular pay services with a very unique twist; you can now share that music with other members to earn Peer Cash(TM).


That's about as good/bad as iTunes; except you don't get direct iPod support. All the geeks I know can rip from a CD and then use the tracks for whatever [legal] purposes they want.

Re:Not really

[myrick]

Yes, there are always ways to circumvent restrictions, but what is the benefit I get from this over either acquiring the songs illegally or by purchasing them legally from iTunes and being able to use the songs directly? Burning and re-ripping not only is a hassle, but it loses quality in the process. That is not a compelling reason for me or any other iPod user to switch to this. The point is not whether or not it can be done, but whether or not it's a viable business model. Geeks are not the mass market (and frankly, most I know wouldn't be willing to sacrifice the quality). How many people do you think would be willing to do this instead of just using iTunes?

Re:Not really

[Marc2k]

Yaaayyy converting medium-bitrate WMA files to WAV, then RECOMPRESSING THEM using a different compression algorithm.

WHERE DO I SIGN UP?

My Opinion

[bsullivan2]

I am well aware that a post very similar to this, if not identical, has already been posted tens or hundreds of times above. However, I am inclined to add to the tally anyway, just for the sake of numbers. 90% of the music I have downloaded is either: A. Great music by people currently dead. Needless to say, they're not missing out on anything. B. Good music by people who make their real money from concerts as opposed to record sales. I don't go to concerts anyway, and I don't pay people for music if they're not either singing or playing an instrument. C. Shitty music. I don't pay anyone for shitty music. The point is, people don't care if the music industry falls, chiefly because it's a pretty shitty industry for the most part. What really great, ground-breaking, creative, original music has come out of this industry in the past 10 years anyway? A subjective question nonetheless, I can count two. One was found dead in his house with bullethole in his head and the other was found dead in his apartment with a knife in his chest. Nice!

The real money maker, ad-music.

[Kamiza Ikioi]

I think I'll cut them a break here. At least they are sorta, but not really officially committed, but groaningly... trying. They'll fail, of course. They are supporting platforms with no real consumer interest (yet, though I could be proven wrong in the future).

I still don't understand why the RIAA hasn't picked up on the real money maker? Take a page from Google, RIAA, and just give all the music away free like Google gives all its popular services away free. Move to a radio-like format, only for download. Simply put a short 15 second ad randomly (every few downloads, not every song) at the beginning or end of the song, then just give them all away free. File Sharer's might still fling them to 50,000 people, but that's doing the work for you.

Will people edit out the ads? Sure they will, but it wouldn't be any worse than it is now. And, if you can legally download all the music you want at better-than-cd quality from a reliable network, why pirate?

What you music ad free? 2 options, either purchase the CD in store or per song online, or... be inventive, and sell a pay-per-use program that can remove the ads for you. Instead of paying per song, you're paying to remove the ad. Don't wanna pay, just keep the ad and stay legal.

But, hey, far be it from me to be original. The RIAA is well over 5 years behind the times here. I suspect in 5 more years they'll come up with Rmail (free e-mail accounts with 1GB storage at rmail.com) to give to people who haven't yet been sued by them as a "reward". ;)

Nice firewall tip

[antxxxx]

There is a good tip in their FAQs. The capital letters were put in by them

Therefore, to MAXIMIZE YOUR EARNING POTENTIAL, you should really make an effort to open your firewall

Publishing Right

[Marc2k]

Also, for the record (and I'm finding out with my band), it's not necessarily copyrights that they give away, but the publishing rights. IANA entertainment lawyer, but you get royalties in return for publishing rights, through a publishing company like BMI or ASCAP. I'm pretty sure the term "copyright" literally means your rights in terms of authorship, so no one else can say they authored your work. For instance, if you retain the copyright to your album, but your label holds exclusive publishing rights, they can do whatever they want with the media (well..as per the contract you signed), they just can't say anyone else recorded it. But IANA entertainment lawyer.

Re:Publishing Right

[Peyna]

The typical situation is that the artist signs with the label and then the work that they produce is actually considered "work-for-hire" and the copyright is owned by the label at that point, which the contract then dictates what the artist receives, etc.

Another typical situation would be that the artist creates the work outside the label. Then the artist holds the copyright; however, they have the transfer their rights to a label in exchange for publicity, publishing, etc. (Not that they have to, but the label won't have it any other way more than likely.)

Copyright actually consists of many rights, which include, inter alia, the exclusive right to:

- reproduce the work
- prepare derivative works
- distribute the work
- perform the work publicly (applies to only certain classes)
- display the work publicly (applies to only certain classes)

It is possible to assign only some of these rights to other individuals, which may be another way that the music industry gets things done. The sad truth is that because of the oligopoly of radio stations held by a few media giants, it is difficult or almost impossible to get anything done with major record labels, who are only interested in screwing artists out of every dime they have.

They're getting closer, but not by much

[spisska]

This move would seem to indicate that the RIAA companies have accepted that P2P is a legitimate distribution vehicle, but they still do not get that P2P will let them drastically increase shipments and revenues if they'd only listen to their customers.

CDs no longer represent the value they used to and there is a lot more competition for the 'young, foolish, and flush' demographic.

When I was at school in the mid 90s, DVDs didn't exists, maybe a quarter of students had a computer, and nobody (at least in the dorms) had a TV, VCR or game machine.

In other words, there was very little competition for entertainment dollars. Now if I've got $50 to blow on media I can buy three CDs, at least 4 DVDs, or new game or two (assuming I pay retail). CDs are overvalued and other products are chasing the same dollar.

So bring the cost of a CD down to $7-$8. Just doing that combined with a major press event will cause records to fly out of shops.

As far as the downloads go, a physical CD (original) is always worth more than any download because of the quality gurantee and the paper cover. The cover is the most expensive part of the package to produce, and it is a key reason why people still buy CDs (and vinyl, for that matter). A physical CD always costs more to produce than a download, and adds significant value.

So downloads shouldn't cost more than $5 an ablum. As far as individual tracks go, they should be put on a sliding scale -- the brand new U2 single is $1, a track off an older U2 record is $.50, and Happy Fun Polka by Lawrence Welk is $0.01. As demand decreases, price decreases.

In order to make this work, everything has to be available. The entire catalog, top to bottom. Once that's done, it's time to set up a BT network, with the whole catalog in lo-fi. If you can't stop 'em from trading (you can't), you can take it away by giving access to everything -- at a reduced quality and filesize. You can hear what it sounds like, but it sounds like crap on your stereo, so if you like it you'll want to buy the hi quality version, which is cheap and easy.

But there's an awful lot in the vaults and an awful lot to have to sift through. This is also where the record stores come back in. With access to this database, a lot of local storage, and a fast connection, they could burn, print, and package any CD while you wait. This, of course, is a value-added service but one that folks would be willing to pay for.

A legitimate copy of something is inherently worth more than an illegitimate copy, and people are willing to pay for legitimacy, to a point.

The RIAA shouldn't be so concerned with getting people to stop downloading (meaning listening to less music, getting less exposure to new music, and spending time playing games instead), but with getting them to buy much of the music they would have previously got for free.

If they would just lower the price and open the gates, they would sell more music than even their greedy little heads have ever dreamed.

Re:They're getting closer, but not by much

[DGtlRift]

> When I was at school in the mid 90s, DVDs didn't
> exists, maybe a quarter of students had a
> computer, and nobody (at least in the dorms) had
> a TV, VCR or game machine.

Don't forget that those in school in the mid 90's like you ( and I ) also grew up with an Atari-400 or a PC with Hurculies graphics adapter if we were lucky. Computers are not a novalty anymore and they are a requirement for most programs now, much like required texts for a class. ( And you can sell them back to the book store for the same loss.)

> As far as the downloads go, a physical CD
> (original) is always worth more than any
> download because of the quality gurantee and
> the paper cover. The cover is the most
> expensive part of the package to produce, and
> it is a key reason why people still buy CDs
> (and vinyl, for that matter). A physical CD
> always costs more to produce than a download,
> and adds significant value.

IMHO worth is not equivalent to cost. A cassette tape costs more to manufacture compared to a CD, but a CD sells for more because people are willing to pay more. I could care less about the cover art and case.. that's the first thing to go. I just put the disk in the 200 disk jukebox and forget about it (litterally, I can never find which slot it's in.)
But that's not the core of the debat, CD's are worth more... that's a personal preference... I say that downloads are worth more, because you don't have to go to the music store. Okay sure you can go online and buy CD's but you still have to wait for them to be shipped to you. Downloads are near instant, and because of this have more value. My juke box CD-changer will (eventually) have less value then my myth player since I can just drop my downloaded music into place. People who buy vinyl are in there own little niches.. they are either the ones that claim they can hear above 24k and notice the loss of highs on a CD and therefor vinyl is better, or they use vynal for mixing, in either case, they also feel that it has more value then other formats.

Math?

[Spy der Mann]

Hmmmm

1. P2P service.
2. ???
3. Bandwidth - Credits = Profit! (?)

Is this model economically viable?

What they dont understand...

[guildsolutions]

Is part of the alure of P2P and huge p2p networks is not just getting free music. It is the ability to get ANY music you want. You are not limited to what they think might be the top 1 million sellable songs.

I Might want to listen to Croatian rock... I might want to listen to some Russian heavy metal... I might want to listen to some South African Youth Choir... My chances of finding that on iTunes is slim..

Until Ligitimate music services can offer a library of hundreds of millions of songs from every genre, from every language, from evey country of the world... They have work to do and ways to improve.

Not to mention that frequently, the music you buy off iTunes is not FLAC quality, something that when I make my own portalbe music for my own portalbe plays I often use

I'm all for it

[erroneus]

If people are willing to pay for and use this service, then I'm all for it. By all indications I have seen so far such as the popularity of iTunes and similar services, I think it'll be very accepted. (Now if they start to build and sell some home appliances that will do this without a "PC" then all the better right?)

So once this becomes big and popular, will the RIAA finally **STFU**???

US Only...

[SleepyHappyDoc]

Darn. Us Canadians are stuck downloading the stuff for nothing, due to 'licensing restrictions'.

You are wrong and in the minority

[tentimestwenty]

The market does not NEED competition because the RIAA is a monopoly. They love how the market is set up now and there's no reason for anything to change. Beyond that, people are stupid and will choose convenience over fair use and quality. I have people walking into my record store and telling me they can get a particular album on iTunes for only a dollar more! And they consider this a good thing! Trust me, the educated "Slashdotters" are outnumbered 10 million to one in this case. Didn't a report just come out that 35% of online downloads (illegal or legal) came from legal sources? The world has gone MAD MAD MAD.

Re:You are wrong and in the minority

[myrick]

Of course the RIAA wants the market to change! 40% of downloads are illegal (same article you're referencing), which is a tremendous amount of lost revenue. The problem is they cannot create a business model that can compete with "free" because they are obsessed with control. If the RIAA wants to regain some of that lost market share, they need to create a system open enough to be attractive to people who get completely DRM-free music at no cost but the time they spend. That means that 1) the methods must be convenient, and 2) the music must be usable for the person's fair use.

Those people who come into your record store willing to pay $1 more to get it on iTunes are a great example. That dollar saves them the time to drive to your store, buy the album, and drive home. Cost is not just about money. Convenience plays a big factor, and if they just want to burn the CD and listen to it on their iPod, then what fair use are they sacrificing? It suits their needs. On the other side of the coin, P2P networks may be free, but it may take a significant time investment to find and download all of the songs on an album in good quality.

My whole point is that the RIAA is proposing a P2P model that does not cater to the huge portion of the market that wants the convenience of being able to download music and put it on their iPod. If this market had competition, then we might be in better shape, but yeah, that is a pipedream. We can at least get competition from the end distributors like iTunes, but that too is subject to the RIAAs licensing. Ultimately, the RIAA just needs a more novel solution than rebranding the same crap as P2P if they want to gain their market share back.

first good laugh of the day

[Anonymous Coward]

From the FAQ:

"Therefore, to MAXIMIZE YOUR EARNING POTENTIAL, you should really make an effort to open your firewall."

This brought about my first good chuckle of the day...

I am shocked that the RIAA is into pornography!

[lightspawn]

"P2P stands for piracy to pornography" -- Andrew Lack, CEO of Sony Music Entertainment.

Now, I know the RIAA is against piracy - that means they're using P2P for pornography!

Parents, make sure to protect your kids from RIAA music filth! They will grow up to become slutty cop killers like the ones in that game that tells you to kill all Haitians, or maybe the ones in resident of evil creek!

Re:Reflections--you are off track

[Vitriol Angst]

I think the purpose of this site is to set legal precedent. When this endeavor fails (and it will), they RIAA will point to a legal, non-infringing P2P that they say is as good or better than other P2P networks and will say that it failed BECAUSE it did not have illegal content. It will be hard to debate that.

So, if this thing fails, it will damage other P2P status. I recommend people join and just keep returning songs because you don't like the DRM or because it just sucks to have "frequent flyer miles" in exchange for being a server.

Whaddya think?

Hmmm

[elronxenu]

1.) Crack the P2P protocol
2.) Set up proxy, man-in-the-middle or alternate server
3.) ???
4.) Profit!

Built on Torrent?

[Anonymous Coward]

What are the odds this "technology" is built on Bit Torrent? Can they legally do that?

DVD Jon

[Psionicist]

On the bright side, when DVD Jon figures out how to to, ehh, "tamper", with this service, we have something new to laugh at!

Accepting "credits" for serving music ...

[Anonymous Coward]

is operating a "commercial server," something that is forbidden by almost all consumer broadband terms of service.

I wonder how it will play out? Squeals from ISPs,
or general acceptance of servers?

MOD PARENT UP!

[Anonymous Coward]

Insightful. We want Free as in speech, not only as in Beer.

Ok, i'll ask first.

[Shadow of Eternity]

Who wants to bet that all songs gotten from this service would be "rigged" in some way. Whether it's getting spied on somehow or being DNA tested by your mp3 player whenever you try to play it. I wonder what the program does when you download/install/run it though. Methinks the EULA is going to have some clause hidden in it somewhere that sais you let them check you out for other songs. I remember running that parentscan thing they put out, flagged all my Overclocked mp3's and a few voice recording's i'd made the other day as pirated music.

why p2p

[hosecoat]

Who cares about P2P. iTunes appears to work, which isnt p2p. People don't download illegal copys because they love p2p so much. It just happens to be a good system for distributers without alot of hardware/bandwith.
All the RIAA is, is a distribution system. p2p isnt going to solve the problem, because the RIAA is the problem. The RIAA has been overly restrictive it their methods of licencing and distributing content, and thats why consumer have turned to p2p. Technology has allowed consumers to subvert the RIAAs distrubution channels. It basically is allowing competition against this monopoly.
I think people do want to support artists (moreso then the RIAA does). The RIAA is just concerned about their big cut. I think consumers see Britneys lifestyle, and wonder if some crummy songs deserves that.
Probably, big artists deserve less, smaller artist deserve more, and the RIAA needs get out of the picture.
p2p isnt going to solve this, because its not a technology problem.

Too many TM's

[sboyko]

I started to read the FAQ, but then I got a headache from all the trademarks:

Peer Impact(TM)
Peer Cash(TM)
Passive Distribution(TM)
Active Distribution(TM)
NoiseMakers(TM)
BadIdea(TM)

OK, maybe I made the last one up.

Well du'r!

[t_allardyce]

Of course they are going to support commercial P2P - it means making money without having to pay for any kind of hosting or network infrastructure!! Its just going to be a bitch if these sort of services are slow, unreliable or don't have enough sources. A smart thing to do (for the industry) would be to merge a P2P system with a centralised system so that you always get good speeds and sources and the P2P part becomes a load-balance. Then just make sure the file and IP list is stored on the central server so that it becomes the service you are paying for, and give it something that free P2P doesn't have - for example file requests - you would be able to request something that the store doesn't have and give the price you are willing to pay and the store will order it and add it to their database depending on popularity/asking-price.

Re:Well du'r!

[KD5YPT]

The idea you have is already a core part of using bittorrent hosting, where there's always at least one original seed that constantly replentishes the network with data. So at worst, it'll become just like an ftp server (no one shares anything), at best, it only need to upload one complete file and the transfer speed will skyrocket.

RIAA != Peer Impact

[Anonymous Coward]

To clarify, Peer Impact isn't owned or operated by the RIAA; they only licensed the music. At that, they are also trying to sign independent artists/labels.

I joined when they first opened up the beta and spent some time on the chat room they used to have (it used Jabber[!]). The engineers were in there and happy to discuss the technology or answer any questions.
As far as downloading and sharing, you can only share files that originally came from their servers. When someone purchases a song, the Peer Impact server chooses the clients to download from based on bandwidth, proximity, etc. When someone downloads from you, your earnings are based on how much you contributed to the download. To note, all downloads are priced the same regardless of the size.

I stopped using it after I spent my free money and moved behind a firewall. I usually made $0.01-$0.05 each time someone downloaded part of a song from me. It took a few weeks for me to make the $0.99 for a free download, but your mileage will vary on how many songs you're sharing, how fast your connection, your location, if you're behind a firewall, and some other stuff. It's worth trying out; at the least you get 5 free DRM'd songs.

(As accused in a later post, PI states how it isn't like an MLM here.

ugh, im not paying for p2p

[Anonymous Coward]

No, no, no!

If I have to PAY for this stuff, I want something like iTunes. It's faster, more convenient, and all dependant on their servers. I see NO point in making peer to peer services pay-only. You get to pay money, but get no benefit out of it.

Re:ugh, im not paying for p2p

[KD5YPT]

Actually, the benefit is that you also get credit towards something... depending on what that something is, it might actually be good to pay. If they bring out anything that's sensible, I'll pay to support them doing more of the sensible things.

Fine by me so long as

[Sycraft-fu]

There's fair compensation for bandwidth used. I have no problem with the concept that they deserve money for their work. Creative works have value, and in our generally capatalist society there needs to be a profit motive to continue those. However if they are using my bandwidth, I also need some compensation for it.

So if it actually works like they claim, it'd be worth checking out. You pay for songs either in cash, or in credit earned for sharing your bandwidth. If the credit earned is reasonable, and if there's a way to shut the program down when you don't want it using your bandwidth, I see this an an extremely fair business model.

Now being it's the RIAA peeps, I have no doubt they'll royally fuck it up, but the idea is sound.

Here's what I really want

[Sycraft-fu]

I want a site run by the recording labels, preferably all of them together. You sign up for an account for a reasonable rate, maybe $20/year or something. This buys you access to the site. The site then contains a database of all their music. I mean all of it, less popular music, stuff out of print, etc. Digital storage is cheap, there's no excuse. The site allows you to browse the libraries by type, artist, related music, etc. It suggests new music to you based off of past buys, or what you are looking at now. You can preview tracks, probably at a decreased quality and only a clip.

Sales would be credit based, you buy song credits, probably $0.50 per song, in increments that are economicly feasable, like $10 or something. Then when you want a song, you tell it to download that. The song is sent from their high speed datacentre(s) to you. I'd have two versions available, a normal compressed quality like 128k OGG or something for a credit, or the full loslessly compressed track for 2 (costs more bandwidth). When feasable I'd offer high resolution orignal masters at 24-bit and high frequency rates as well.

A system like this I would use because of the simplicity and access to what I want. If I could really get the music I like, all of it, and get it at a good quality, I have no problem paying for it.

That would be my ideal service.

Re:Here's what I really want

[Freexe]

That is exactly what I want.

I don't have enough time to troll through lots of music for the few wicked bands I know are out there, and I want music of the same quality as I can get from a CD.

The day they start providing such a service is the day I start buying music again (I don't download or buy music in protest of the lame state of the music industry today)


One thing I would add to that is,
Once you have paid for a track you should be able to re-download it again if for some reason your computer dies etc (maybe at the fraction of the cost of the first time you did it to compensate for the bandwidth)

I just tried the service

[michrech]

I haven't seen anyone here mention having actually tried the service so I figured I'd throw my two cents in (even though it's abit late).

The files that *I* downloaded are 128kbps .wma files. They do sound good (at least to me). The transfer was quick.

Right now, because it's in "beta", the service is giving away $5 worth of songs (@ .99 per song, you will get 5).

You can burn the songs to a CD which is nice. I don't know how many times it will let you -- I'm currently buring the second CD of the same 5 songs and it's going OK thus far.

When I signed up for my account I was *not* asked for a credit card number or any banking information. I'll have to wait untill payday to see how well that part works.

In the FAQ, they state that you will 'earn' up to 10% credit for sharing the song. You can earn more if you send what they call "noisemakers" to people to try to get them to pay for a song as well.

I'll be watching to see how well it goes. Microsoft's MSN Music offers 160kbps songs instead, but I'd like to see exactly how this 'get credit for more songs' works before I make any further jdugements.

--
telnet://sinep.gotdns.com -- TW2002 and LORD registered!

Re:Reflections--you are off track

[myrick]

It very well may be that this site is purely for legal precedent. However, claiming that it failed because it is a P2P network that doesn't serve illegal content isn't a valid argument. The P2P part of it is just the distribution model. iTunes could incorporate a similar distribution network with a rewards system and with Fairplay, and I'm sure it would be just as successful as the current incarnation of iTunes. The flaw in this system is not catering to the mass market. But perhaps that is just as much Apple's fault for refusing to license Fairplay?

As for joining and 'returning songs', I'm not entirely sure what you mean by that. Are you suggesting people join, buy songs, and then ask for a refund because the system isn't working to their tastes? It's clearly stated that the songs come with DRM, and it's also not required that you be a server, you just can in exchange for some cash. The cash you receive is directly proportional to the amount the network utilizes your collection, which can be 0 if you so choose.

Really, I think this would be a great system if they opened it up a little more. Some way of incorporating Fairplay would be nice. The point, however, is that what they've got will fail, and I don't believe it will make any difference in the RIAA's fight against P2P.

So... great

[mcc]

It combines all the hassles, headaches and spotty reliability of a P2P piracy service with the inherently limited music catalog of your average legal download service, plus unlike the iTunes Music Store it doesn't appear to feature indie music.
...
Well gee where do I sign up. :P

But define the credit to bandwidth ratio...

[Seng]

I have a feeling, with the RIAA involved, that it will be something along the lines of how banner ad views are paid - $.05 per 1000 views (downloads), etc.

It's an affiliate spam scheme

[Animats]

It's just a scheme by the RIAA members to recruit spammers. If a user spams somebody and they click on the link, the spammer gets a credit.

We'll probably see "tell a friend" mail generators by Monday or so. By Wednesday "PeerImpact" will be in most Bayesian filters, and in about two weeks, the RIAA servers will be on most major blocklists.

Except for one thing

[MemeRot]

After a month or so of being on the service and making a few purchases, I'd imagine everyone would simply leave their share up and gradually accumulate credits. Before long at all, everyone would be be buying everything for free-except-for-bandwidth credits.

Man, the RIAA are freakin' geniuses.

Re:Except for one thing

[Peyna]

You can't accumulate credits unless someone else is paying for that. Unless it is a 1 for 1 exchange (1 credit for 1 upload) this won't happen.

Also, each person that you upload too has just become another potential uploader; so for each credit you gain, the chance of you getting another for that same song decreases.

Re:Except for one thing

[MemeRot]

Paying for it or using credits to get it. For as long as some number of people sign up for the service every month and purchase at least a few songs for the first month or so, those who've been there for a long time allowing people to download from them will accumulate some credits. I didn't say it would be fast, but as long as you have a few songs that others like and leave your service available 24/7, then it's basically inevitable.

Each person you upload to does decrease your chance to sell that song again, true. But it also gives you some credit towards getting another song to add to your list.

It has many of the hallmarks of a classic pyramid scheme to my eye. You have an incentive to get other people to join and hopefully buy from you. The earlier you get in on the action, the better your chance of doing well. Expect a lot of sigs and comment spam about peer impact in the future for just that reason, a la freeipod.com, etc. Once there is a large enough user base that the chance of people downloading from you asymptotically approaches zero then it's time to give up. But as long as this takes off at all, there will be a sweet spot for people who get in early who will be able to earn a disproportianate amount of credits for their investment.

$5 Free

[Anonymous Coward]

There is nothing stopping you making loads of accounts - and getting $5 worth of free music on them. Whats more it even lets you play music from all accounts on your playlist.

or don't sign up?

[ImaLamer]

RTF Summary:

Users have to pay for each track they download, but sharing songs they've purchased from Peer Impact earns them credits they can spend on the service.

I think this is a genius idea. In fact, it might make the downloads faster *if it swarms* instead of relying on a central server to host all of the music. I know playing iTunes previews can be slow, purchases sometimes come in slower - and I'm a 3 Mbps DSL connection.

I say download a song you think is going to be a hit and then take the gamble. If it is the next "Hit me baby one more time" then you could finally get that obscure album you want for free.

Less than 1 in 10 files traded online is legal

[geekee]

From the article:
"Some 330 million tracks were purchased online last year from online stores such as Apple Computer Inc.'s iTunes. But around 5 billion were downloaded from free file-sharing networks, he said."

So maybe 35% of downloaders are legal, but they don't download as much, if so, since less than 1 in 10 downloads is legal

" It's a lot better than iTMS"

[SlashDread]

Dude its vapour.

Lets wait, Ill bet ya a karma the thin.

There is DRM for MP3 (thompson?) compatibility is an issue.

Somehow I think the RIAA does not care about compat, and DOES care about protection.

well in that case

[Savatte]

what's the official American name for Six Pence None The Richer?

Trent Reznor is no exception

[Anonymous Coward]

Probably because he has always fought to have as much control as possible over his copyrights, etc., Trent has probably been screwed over by record companies more than most artists who are just looking for a paycheck and free limos. To whit:
- He can't rerelease his first album remixed in surround sound because of issues with his first label, TVT.
- He's been trying to release the DVD of his video Closure for a while now, but can't get permission (also from TVT, I think.)
- He formed Nothing to control everything himself and then his former manager and Nothing co-owner ripped him off for years, leaving him (relatively) broke despite having several platinum albums. They just settled a lawsuit giving Trent back full control of the copyrights (post-TVT) as well as a a few million bucks in damages.
-Trent is no longer associated with Nothing; the new album was released through Interscope.

Oh, and I think With Teeth is pretty good....

Mac support?

[rob123]

It appears this software does not support the mac.

So we're still stuck with iTMS ...or allofmp3 :)

Not that iTMS is terrible or anything, but choice is nice.

unlimited music anywhere...

[Danathar]

The key is that people want to be able to play their music ANYWHERE...and they don't care how it's done.

My prediction:

Cell phones with headphone jacks (and line out) where you pay a monthly subscription like yahoo music or musicmatch and listen to the music streamed over data networks through the phone on demand.

If I could get this through my cell..I'd pay (as long as it's reasonable..like 10 bucks a month).

There would be almost no reason to copy music if you could play it from anywhere.

Misleading Headline....

[brainnolo]

This P2P service while is legal is not run by the RIAA, most comments seem to assume that the RIAA created that.

of course they support...

[no_joy]

...because it'll never happen. The RIAA in its crusade against p2p networks and users has been accused of being anti-tech, anti-progress. So for PR purposes they support this fantasy system that virtually no one will want to participate in.

Peer Impact Caveat (Wurld Media)

[Anonymous Coward]

Peer Impact was created by Wurld Media, the same company that was responsible for some of the third-party spyware in Morpheus.

Still no competetion for...

[Pork-Chopper]

www.Allofmp3.com I mean since I've been using this russian website, my notion of fair price for music has changed considerably and permanently. At less than 2c a MB i can find what I want, when I want, easily and quickly. The legitimate price for music is 1$ an album, not 1$ a song- I don't care how many airmiles or RIAA notes I get.

the first downloader

[john_is_war]

I'd hate to be this guy. He downloads the file then BAM, he suddenly has to share it with everyone else who wants it until someone else finishes downloading it

Re:the first downloader

[Anonymous Coward]

You do not have to share your songs, you guys should really get your facts straight.

Finally!

[Guppy06]

"Users have to pay for each track they download, but sharing songs they've purchased from Peer Impact earns them credits they can spend on the service."

So the RIAA is setting up a pyramid scheme? How appropriate!

The term piracy is ridiculous

[bigtallmofo]

If the RIAA didn't give the artists any royalties due, they would be breaching their contract with the artists, but not committing piracy.

What you say sure looks like legalese until you realize that copyright infringement has nothing to do with piracy whatsoever. That is true whether it's a kid in his bedroom, a person selling copied DVDs on the street or the RIAA.

I hate how copying a song has been equated to murdering, raping and pillaging marauders at sea. It's been an effective PR campaign but it's plain nonsense.

I could just as easily claim that if you don't pay me $100, you're guilty of murdering my chances of buying a bigger house. You murderer!

Re:The term piracy is ridiculous

[Peyna]

Language evolves over time. I don't think anyone that hears the term "software piracy" would equate it in their mind with anything regarding the "arrr" variety of a pirate.

In fact, I bet if you gave people a multiple choice question regarding what "piracy" meant, very few people, except those who religiously celebrate Talk Like a Pirate Day would mark the box labelled "Shiver me timbers!"

Find a better argument, it's just a word, and it doesn't have the connotation you claim it does.

no way...

[Cryptnotic]

No way it would be a 1:1 ratio. It would be at best 1:10, more likely closer to 1:100 (i.e., upload 100M to download 1M). The old BBS's had similar systems, though often they would let you download 4X or 5X what you uploaded.

Re:no way...

[kurokaze]

I don't know what BBS boards you were on, but most of the times I dialed into were 1:1. Only a few were better than that.. and it was usually because they didn't have much worth downloading! :)

chris vrenna

[Anonymous Coward]

should get back together with trent reznor and do some good stuff ;\

'with teeth' wasnt impressive to me vs the 1990's NIN.

I bet...

[tolkienfan]

...they won't be supporting Ogg Vorbis or mp3 due to the lack of copy controls.

I like the idea. And I'd be happy to pay for tracks. But until I can get them in a format that's useful, I'm not interested.

Example
I have a Sony car cd mp3 player. I rip tracks from cd's and dvd's and load >700Mbs of mp3s onto a cd.
With .aac I can't do that.

So thanks, but no thanks.

Plus I don't like paying the RIAA to bribe^H^H^H^H^Hlobby congress to further take away my freedoms.

not riaa

[Anonymous Coward]

When will you guys figure out that this isn't run by RIAA. It is independent of them. They just support it by saying its legal.

System requirements

[Anonymous Coward]

For those of you tempted to download the software and give it a try, it requires Windows Media Player 9 and refuses to install if the player is not found.

Just a distribution method

[Anonymous Coward]

Peer Impact is just a distribution method for content providers. The recording industry said it needs to be WMA with DRM and that is what they did.

They are only limited by what the content provider wants to do. If an indie label says that they can put MP3s without DRM on there, they will do so. So really, they have a lot of options for both content and format.

Also, in about 2-3 weeks we'll see some type of compatibility worked out for the iPod.

This really isn't supporting anything...

[ShimmyShimmy]

I really don't see how this is supporting 'file sharing' at all. The idea of sharing is you can put up whatever stuff you have on your computer, be it songs/movies you downloaded, songs you ripped yourself, hell, songs you sung youself. You can put up your own pictures or ebooks, and TV shows.

This service really isn't supporting much of anything directly p2p related. I mean, it looks attractive because you can download songs from anyone, but that's only songs they downloaded via the service. You can't serve up just any mp3's on your computer, so when it comes down to it, it's only the songs that were on a central server in the first place.

When it comes down to it, all this is is an iTunes where you download from someone else instead of a central server. This method brags that (a) you can 'share' your music, (b) earn credits, and (c) get faster downloads.

Well, (c) I never seem to have a problem with iTunes downloads going slow. As for (a) no one really gives a crap what music you have. It's the same damn song you could buy from the next guy, or a central server on iTunes, so it's not like it's really your music. And (b) this is annoying as crap. As if I don't get enough solicitations for 'visit my webcam site' and 'sign up for a free ipod', now I have to listen to AIM people blab about this too? Well, let's ignore that for now. You get a limit of 10% on each song! So I'm going to go through all the trouble of pushing this stupid program for a lousy 10 (9.9) cents on every song?

What a rip. I'll still to iTunes. Or better yet, Bittorrent and Soulseek.

It actually is pretty good

[Qbydeuce]

I would just like to comment on the whole Peer Impact thing, since I have actually used the service for quite some time now. First off, I have found it to be a very good program that is basically the best way for you to buy music online. The song selection is already quite good, and they are adding more content daily. The layout of the program as well as the technical support is also very good:

In terms of actually buying songs, they are the typical .99 cents each or you can buy a whole album for usually 9.99.

You can use your credit card or debit card to make purchases one at a time, or you can load as much as you want into your account to draw from as you need it. (i.e. I put 20 bucks in there to last me a few weeks or whatever)

Since all of the songs originally come from their server (even though they are eventually distributed by individuals) the quality is always good (128 wma) and you never have to worry about a crappy download or spyware or the wrong song or something. I know that this is one of the main reasons I was fed up with the free P2Ps.

Finally, I would just like to say for all those people who are complaining about having to pay for music. Obviously the RIAA isn't going to give music away, this is simply another, cheaper and easier way to purchase your music. They know that people are still going to get music for free because, lets be serious, no matter how good a service is nothing can compete with free. But, people will pay for quality, and ease of use, and that is what this and other pay services offer. If i can use this and save 50 cents on each of my songs instead of paying .99 at itunes with nothing in return then I will do that. If you want to check it out for yourselves go to www.peerimpact.com and test the beta. They are even giving people 5 bucks to try it out.

other uses??

[psycobrat]

why has no one brought up about adding in PERSONAL content or indie?. mod the riaa's nice app to help spread indie stuff and then get credit for passing on non-riaa stuff. 1 hack riaa p2p app 2 add idie/personal tunes 3 ??? 4 PROFIT.. well, get credits for riaa shit.

Peer Impact low impact by the look of it currently

[AussieVamp2]

only US, no iPod (or a whole bunch of other players - including mine), etc. etc.

This is

[bootcitydot.org]

Interesting Stuff. I can't wait to see what happens over the next three years. Hal http://www.bootcity.org/