Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

RIAA Supporting Commercial P2P

Posted by Zonk on from the effective-marketing dept.

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.'"

11 of 307 comments (clear)

  1. Oh my.. by elemur · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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..)

  2. Reasonable... by Heem · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    --
    Don't Tread on Me
  3. how long by udderly · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.'

  4. Re:So.. by AviLazar · · Score: 1, Interesting

    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.

    --

    I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
  5. no, thanks by lovebyte · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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!

    --

    I'll do it for cheesy poofs.

  6. Re:Spyware? by hcdejong · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

  7. Not really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    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.

  8. Re:Artists by Marc2k · · Score: 3, Interesting
    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.
    --
    --- What
  9. Here's what I really want by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  10. Re:Artists by 1ucius · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

  11. It actually is pretty good by Qbydeuce · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.