Thanks, I just wanted to make sure I didn't miss anything -- a lot of great ideas, never allowed to be implemented.
I agree that the biggest innovation was a subscription model. (Not technically, but psychologically) I don't know how many would have signed up otherwise. I bet it was HELL trying to convince labels to go with it, though. After all, you think of extreme: Unlimited downloads. I found out, however, that I eventually procrastinated my downloads....since... I would always "be able" to download it "later". And never ended up downloading 4 zillion albums like I imagined I would.
Do you have any statistics of any extreme downloaders? Anyone you monitored?
So, I spent a lot of time brainstorming with the other execs at the company, trying to figure out exactly the maximum services we could provide
Which in the end, ended up being nothing, right?
Not to be a jerk, but it looks like the only service eMusic ever came up with, is what they started with: full downloads from labels willing to have you do just that. Leaving the company with just swaying more lables to join this business plan.
I'm glad to see the re-encoding of the mp3's as LAME -aps. Hope they finish the full inventory.
The difference is ownership/useage.
For instance, you can listen to any song you want to, for free. (Or nearly free if you consider paying for listening to the radio ads). However, maybe you don't want to wait all day to listen to your 1 song. You have the alternative to shell over $18, and then you get to listen to it anytime you want. (barring any copy-protection that chrashes your computer, etc, etc)
You could, instead, go to your neigbors house and listen to it for free, sure, but will he let you come over at midnight when he's asleep? (Kind of reminds me of that commercial for broadband with the annoying neighbor! heh). Will he let you listen to it as loud as you want? And will he let you come over every day? No, of course not. Your question is silly.
Chipping in a $18/N with N friends and making N-1 copies is, however, a great idea. I'd love ot set up a group of friends and do just that to start a FLAC collection. Hard to find that kind of niche, though.
but now that we can copy cds easily, I actually think a CD rental service would do quite well...
LOL. THat made me chuckle. How true, how true.
However, I'd like to bring up the fact the library works much like this! It's not hugely popular. After much thinking, I guess it's because even though they do buy the new music, they only buy 1 copy. Then that's checked out for 7 days at a time. By the time you get it, the rush is over.
the good ol' days when somebody jumped on a cause and rode it home come hell or high water seems to be gone with the wind.
A little harsh, don't you think?:)
We are, afterall, talking about a $2 million cause. I think that's enough money to cut out 99% of us good-will thinkers. Not only that, but it's 100% guaranteed to end up in court for the next 100 months. Besides, it's only been 24 hours since the idea has been out. And... lots of ideas have been showed today at slashdot that this may not be feasible.
I also think that the amazing number of P2P projects that have come out in the last few years show that those that could....did indeed jump on a cause and ride it home come hell or high water.
Interviews with the RIAA have often pointed to admissions that some of this stuff is indeed illegal, but so small, that they'd never take any actions against it.
However, if you were to base future exploits on this that were much grander in scale, you bet they would stand up in court and say that this was illegal.
The difference between technically illegal, and practicality.
As I've said, I only know it because I spent several years trying to make sure I didn't accidentally step across the line while designing systems at EMusic.
Not to nitpick, but what exactly were you trying to tip toe around? I thought eMusic.com had the express permission from all the copyright holders to do... whatever service eMusic does. (I was a subscriber, so I know what the service is, being generic on purpose because really you got permission from those labels to: sell full mp3 copies of their albums on a subscription model)
Otherwise, you've just reinvented streaming radio, congratulations.
Exactly! Many people seem to be reinventing that today! ??
Yes, but is viewing a web page violating the copyright on the web page? It is not.
What are you talking about?? The people that own the copyright to their web pages (for example, a news website) OWN the copyright to the information on their web page, and allowed to do what they want with it. --in this case allow readers like you to read it.
And *you* would not be allowed to make your own web page copying that info, to display to others.
If it was streamed, wouldn't it fall under Internet Radio laws? If so, then we're talking about a serious expense, considering you have ot pay $0.XX per listener... Plus you aren't allowed to let the user pick what they want to listen to.
The NET ACT, is specifically worded so that "for profit" is defined as "expecting other copyrighted items in return".
Thus trading is considered "for profit" and is illegal. The DOJ interview yesterday even mentioned this, while defining what they look for, when deciding if an act is considered for Criminal Cases, or just Civil Suits.
Due to the way the NET Act was written (trading mp3s qualifies 'as profit' if you expect other mp3s in return, for instance, thus trading is illegal), I think the same would qualify here.
The RIAA could argue that the member of the co-op who is downloading this CD, is in fact getting it 'for profit'. His/her own profit.
The RIAA are tricky, and would figure something out.
The fact is folks, that if the information on illegal acts was obtained illegally and unconstitutionally, the evidence cannot be admitted into court and without evidence there is no case.
For Criminal lawsuits, you are correct. But for Civil lawsuits, that is not true. In fact it's even less true because the RIAA has been able to buy legislation to make their actions even more lawful.
I'm also a little confused on why you think that the informaiton was obtained illegally. You are publicly opening your computer to the world, much like a web site. The fact is, they can find their copyrighted works being illegally distributed on your public server.
But I'm sure your grand scheme will be explained while in court. Looking forward to it.
I hear ya. I've always known I liked the blues. But which artists exactly? I mean, I've heard some songs labeled "the blues" that I absolutely hated. But I knew there was a subset somewhere in there that I just loved.
In the record stores, I was daunted with the idea of spending $20 on a random Blues CD, that I may, or may not have liked. (Yes, $20 or more for the non-pop popular cd's)
Thanks to Napster, I was able to figure out it was the Muddy Waters & etc that I liked.
With eMusic.com's subscription I was also able to immerse myself in another genre I really enjoyed: Punk.
This was truly a new found love of music that I had lost. Before Napster, I had not bought a CD for many years. Hadn't been to a concert since Lollapalooza #2.
if history is any indicator (it is) I wouldn't hold your breath. They've been pitching it's imminent release for years onw.
Then again, if a $13,000 prosumer model is in your budget, then it might be sooner than my skepticism. (I know my previous work place bought a prosumer dvd-burner many years ago)
Then again, your comments about the amount of burning you've done isn't very much at all. I've burned more mp3's in my basement. Easy accessibility might be a factor for you, but then again, $13,000 would easily buy enough hard drive space to house 2TB, mirrored.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree that the biggest innovation was a subscription model. (Not technically, but psychologically) I don't know how many would have signed up otherwise. I bet it was HELL trying to convince labels to go with it, though. After all, you think of extreme: Unlimited downloads. I found out, however, that I eventually procrastinated my downloads....since... I would always "be able" to download it "later". And never ended up downloading 4 zillion albums like I imagined I would.
Do you have any statistics of any extreme downloaders? Anyone you monitored?
Which in the end, ended up being nothing, right?
Not to be a jerk, but it looks like the only service eMusic ever came up with, is what they started with: full downloads from labels willing to have you do just that. Leaving the company with just swaying more lables to join this business plan.
I'm glad to see the re-encoding of the mp3's as LAME -aps. Hope they finish the full inventory.
Other Shapsters could be started. They can't buy the whole worl.....err, never mind.
I thought Cringely's article mentioned that only 10% stock would ever be available for sale.
Of course not.
The difference is ownership/useage.
For instance, you can listen to any song you want to, for free. (Or nearly free if you consider paying for listening to the radio ads). However, maybe you don't want to wait all day to listen to your 1 song. You have the alternative to shell over $18, and then you get to listen to it anytime you want. (barring any copy-protection that chrashes your computer, etc, etc)
You could, instead, go to your neigbors house and listen to it for free, sure, but will he let you come over at midnight when he's asleep? (Kind of reminds me of that commercial for broadband with the annoying neighbor! heh). Will he let you listen to it as loud as you want? And will he let you come over every day? No, of course not. Your question is silly.
Chipping in a $18/N with N friends and making N-1 copies is, however, a great idea. I'd love ot set up a group of friends and do just that to start a FLAC collection. Hard to find that kind of niche, though.
Honestly, I think there were good posts made today on why it won't work.
Still a great article, though. Cringley is right on at least one thing... this type of thinking is what's needed to come up with a winner.
LOL. THat made me chuckle. How true, how true.
However, I'd like to bring up the fact the library works much like this! It's not hugely popular. After much thinking, I guess it's because even though they do buy the new music, they only buy 1 copy. Then that's checked out for 7 days at a time. By the time you get it, the rush is over.
A little harsh, don't you think? :)
We are, afterall, talking about a $2 million cause. I think that's enough money to cut out 99% of us good-will thinkers. Not only that, but it's 100% guaranteed to end up in court for the next 100 months. Besides, it's only been 24 hours since the idea has been out. And... lots of ideas have been showed today at slashdot that this may not be feasible.
I also think that the amazing number of P2P projects that have come out in the last few years show that those that could....did indeed jump on a cause and ride it home come hell or high water.
However, if you were to base future exploits on this that were much grander in scale, you bet they would stand up in court and say that this was illegal.
The difference between technically illegal, and practicality.
Not to nitpick, but what exactly were you trying to tip toe around? I thought eMusic.com had the express permission from all the copyright holders to do... whatever service eMusic does. (I was a subscriber, so I know what the service is, being generic on purpose because really you got permission from those labels to: sell full mp3 copies of their albums on a subscription model)
Otherwise, you've just reinvented streaming radio, congratulations.
Exactly! Many people seem to be reinventing that today! ??
mp3.com streeeeeamed their music too. They lost.
What are you talking about?? The people that own the copyright to their web pages (for example, a news website) OWN the copyright to the information on their web page, and allowed to do what they want with it. --in this case allow readers like you to read it.
And *you* would not be allowed to make your own web page copying that info, to display to others.
If it was streamed, wouldn't it fall under Internet Radio laws? If so, then we're talking about a serious expense, considering you have ot pay $0.XX per listener... Plus you aren't allowed to let the user pick what they want to listen to.
Thus trading is considered "for profit" and is illegal. The DOJ interview yesterday even mentioned this, while defining what they look for, when deciding if an act is considered for Criminal Cases, or just Civil Suits.
The RIAA could argue that the member of the co-op who is downloading this CD, is in fact getting it 'for profit'. His/her own profit.
The RIAA are tricky, and would figure something out.
True. That's why you need to make it cost $50 to buy the CD. (But then you'd get the $49.95 back). More incentive to return it.
For Criminal lawsuits, you are correct. But for Civil lawsuits, that is not true. In fact it's even less true because the RIAA has been able to buy legislation to make their actions even more lawful.
I'm also a little confused on why you think that the informaiton was obtained illegally. You are publicly opening your computer to the world, much like a web site. The fact is, they can find their copyrighted works being illegally distributed on your public server.
But I'm sure your grand scheme will be explained while in court. Looking forward to it.
100GB? Newbie :)
I just feel bad for the people who are going to have their lives ruined in the meantime.
I agree. I just clicked on "Ticker Tape Parade" album, and it sounds just like anything on the Clear Channel radio channels right now.
In the record stores, I was daunted with the idea of spending $20 on a random Blues CD, that I may, or may not have liked. (Yes, $20 or more for the non-pop popular cd's)
Thanks to Napster, I was able to figure out it was the Muddy Waters & etc that I liked.
With eMusic.com's subscription I was also able to immerse myself in another genre I really enjoyed: Punk.
This was truly a new found love of music that I had lost. Before Napster, I had not bought a CD for many years. Hadn't been to a concert since Lollapalooza #2.
Just encrypt your drive with a USB keychain'd key.
I would imagine a 'glitch' would be a misread byte or section. Probably make the one file corrupt, which can then be reassembled with PAR.
My backup goals for this, would not be life critical.
Not offended at all. It'll be a great follow-up next time I share my Black man eats watermelon joke.
Then again, if a $13,000 prosumer model is in your budget, then it might be sooner than my skepticism. (I know my previous work place bought a prosumer dvd-burner many years ago)
Then again, your comments about the amount of burning you've done isn't very much at all. I've burned more mp3's in my basement. Easy accessibility might be a factor for you, but then again, $13,000 would easily buy enough hard drive space to house 2TB, mirrored.
What's the point of your sig then, if not to associate the compression of Gates' name to being something derisive that we can all laugh at?