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

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..)

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.

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: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.

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.