"That's not on you more that's on your users, they sell too, they need a license too that says that they can win money with that IP. Nowadays law doesn't allow that. We're labeled just as "consumers" (maybe your system could change that)."
Yes, our system has a "new license" -- that the artist simply selects on the website. The artist chooses "redistribution on Bitmunk" as a part of their license, which allows all users on Bitmunk to redistribute their work. They must choose this in order for their work to be available for sale. By choosing this, it grants all Bitmunk users the right to trade their work over Bitmunk.
Well have to see how this pans out with respect to all of the major players in the music industry. We are hopeful that they will see us as the solution to the problem and work with us. Thank you for your offering your opinion.
Bitmunk is designed to help grow the industry of ideas -- and allow people that want to make a living off of their ideas come and sell them to others who want to share them. We don't believe in taking control away from any of the people involved in that process -- rather we believe in empowering them all so that everyone can benefit. We believe this is the best solution possible and we will do our best to achieve it.
It may end up that we were only a stepping stone in making a truly fair and mutually beneficial marketplace of ideas possible, however, we believe that we will be the keystone.
"One thing more, as I said earlier, I will watch bitmunk (damn! I always write chipmunk in the first place:-) closely. For me it's the first time I see a P2P effort that seems to try to solve the problem to both users and corporations. But that means you're fighting with both, that's why you have my respect."
Well thank you very much, it is certainly appreciated:).
None taken. If all you do is trade public domain works, that's completely understandable.
"The total will be the actual price Except if the artist wants it to be free and set 0$ too."
The artist sets his or her price just like a seller does. An artist can set a price of zero.
"Serverless : (...)there's a central server that set "default" or base prices. This gives the owner of the server the ability to set very high prices to items he wants to ban from the network, or to "favor" some items againt others."
We are the default server. We do not set higher or lower prices for different works in an effort to ban them or favor them. Our default server uses a multiplier on the royalty the artist sets. We want every work on this network to sell as much as possible, why would we try and favor any particular one? We do not.
"Open Source : There will be a single client (...). Not if it's open source, this is a contradiction. If you release the code of the client anyone can see how the protocol works and create a free server, and you don't want it because there must be only one "central" server."
Here's how software will work with Bitmunk:
The vast majority of the client will be open source. We obviously cannot make it all open source for the reason you have just stated. We give out a closed source interface that handles the file distribution protocol -- making sure that the system is fair and the artist gets paid. The rest of the client is opensource. This small part is invisible to the end user, and it does not limit the variety possible in designing clients. Clients simply need this "plugin" to make it actually work on the network.
"IP : There's no need to adapt IP to make this work, our model already does it. Quote from a CD: Unauthorised copying hiring lending public performance and broadcasting of this record prohibited! (Tubular Bells 2003, that in fact it's copy protected against digital copy and I can't listen in my portable MP3 player)"
And the reason the artist or label has chosen that license is because users are using illegal P2P networks rather than a legal one... because up until now a legal one did not exist. Once most people start trading on Bitmunk, you won't see these kind of license restrictions because they won't be necessary.
"You'll need to get permission from the music industry to do this, as well as all users of your network. Your model really it's an advance over illegal P2P networks, but does not give you permission from the authors just because seems to be legal."
We do get permission from the artist before anything is allowed to be sold on the network. What is wrong with that?
"As I said, this doesn't appeal to me. If you were wondering, I do buy CD, DVD and a lot of other things from authors I respect, even if it's protected against digital copy. But eMule gives me another choice if I think that the price it's not fair."
And so does Bitmunk. Buy from a lower seller. You'll even be able to offer the artist your own price by putting some money down (with the ability to withdraw it again) -- and if enough people do that and the artist realizes he could make a profit, he'll accept everyone's money and they'll get the music.
"Industry doesn't give me a refund if I go to cinema to see a film and I don't like it."
We offer sample previews on our website that you can check out before buying.
"I will pay 10$ to see the extended version of "Return of the king" in a cinema, but not even 1$ to see "SW: Episode III". I do care about this, the industry don't. And my position doesn't have much to do with your system. Your system it's not fair to the users, just to the industry."
You opinion has everything to do with this system! See what I just wrote above -- if there's a movie you'll pay a $1 for, put your money down. The artist will see t
It is possible to distribute free works on Bitmunk, but that's not what the service was designed for. There are plenty of other services that allow you to distribute works freely already. The problem was that there wasn't a P2P network that allowed the artist to get reimbursed and the user to buy and resell works. Bitmunk was created to help those people that make their living off of creating new ideas, music, movies, etc.
It is great if people want to create works and put them in the public domain for free distribution, but there are already many, many different networks available for those works to be passed around in. There isn't a problem with trading free works -- so there's nothing to solve. You agree, right?
There is a problem with trading copyrighted works, and Bitmunk solves that problem.
If people want to make a living off of creating they certainly should be able to if people want to buy their work. Bitmunk allows them to do just that.
In order for a file to be shared on Bitmunk, it must be associated with a creative work. If the creative work it is associated with is not cleared for trading on the network, then the Sales Verification Authority will not allow the transaction to take place. Please read our white paper and look over the help items on our website.
The Sales Verification Authority (SVA) is the key element that I think you're missing here -- it prevents unauthorized trading from taking place. Every single trade must be cleared by the SVA. Two peers sign a contract that must go through the SVA before a download can begin; the SVA verifies that the creative works that are to be transferred are valid. If the seller has associated a file with the wrong creative work, then the buyer will complain to us after getting a bogus file and the seller will be fined and/or banned from the network (if the offenses continue).
You'll have a much better understanding of how the network works if you read the materials written about on our website. The network has a third party (the SVA) that clears trading, it ensures that trading is legal. I think you're leaving this party out of the equation -- and that is why you're coming to the conclusion that you are.
Gollum,
"People wants a free (as in beer, not speech:-) serverless, reliable, open source and fast file-sharing system."
The next version of our software will have this exact appearance to Joe User. There will be a single client that does all of the search and file price setting. You won't even know, unless you care to read about our technology, that there's a central server that keeps the catalog of creative works. It will appear like Napster to the average user -- only they get to set a price or prices for all of their songs.
Our software will also be open source, fast, and reliable. There's no need to adapt IP to make this work, our model already does it.
To the average user it will work like this:
1. Register as a user on the website.
2. Put money in your account.
3. Download the client.
4. Use the client's interface to select the files you want to share and set your prices.
5. Start sharing -- search for what you want and click buy; it downloads -- play your music.
That's it.
"About "selling" others IP, I'm not a lawyer, but probably the owners of those IP won't allow me or others to win money. They want to squeeze every buck. I really want to see what the music industry has to say about this."
There's no reason why artists would rather have their work be traded for free on an illegal trading network or for a measely return on an online music store when they can get a price they set and they deserve on Bitmunk.
Bitmunk is a competitive marketplace, it is not tied down to any sort of pricing model -- other than consumer demand. Prices will fluctuate according to actual true worth of a song to the consumer.
"Btw. What happens if I want to sell an album for let's say... 0$. Will the system allow me?"
Yes, it will. But that just means you get $0 for every file trade, it doesn't mean that the buyer doesn't have to pay for the album. You set a price that you want for every sale, just like the artist does. The total will be the actual price.
"Because if the system does not control it's users... or does it? DRM?"
No, the system does not control its users, we use incentives. We do not believe in assuming our users are criminals and trying to control them with DRM. Our network will succeed because there are financial and social incentives to use it. You trade your files for money on our network, and the artist who makes the music you like gets his or her royalty. This doesn't happen on any other network.
One of the best parts of our network is that it empowers the independent artist and the end-user. It gives the little guy control. It lets the artist get paid something he or she deserves. Then the user that buys that work keeps his or her fair use rights and can even resell as many times as they want for profit.
We produce the digital signatures, our software creates the keys. We are the authority -- our software is the verification service. Every user on our network is issued a key that signs all communication over Bitmunk. All communication other than the actual file transfer must go through our Sales Verification Authority.
The P2P part of our network is the actual file download -- where the greatest bandwidth is required.
Please read more about this in the white paper and through the help items on our site.
Its much more likely that you'll produce music that's original or different enough from what you may have subconsciously picked it up from than otherwise. There are plenty of other people that don't give the possibility that they subconsciously picked up their song lyrics from the radio any thought at all -- and they are very successful.
If everyone was so worried about it -- no new music would ever get created.
BitTorrent is still so anonymous that no one needs to be responsible. Also, BitTorrent does not get the artist their royalties. Bitmunk solves both of these problems.
And yes, I'd say other P2P technology was "first-generation" -- Bitmunk is "next-generation." Its designed to fix the problems of the first-generation of P2P products by allowing artists who want to make money off of doing what they love to be able to do so on a P2P network... and by allowing users to trade their work and get paid while doing it.
We aren't trying to control our users -- please take a look at our website in more depth. We are trying to solve the problem through incentives, because we understand what you have just described; we would have to control the entire internet and no system of control will ever work, people will always rise up and defeat it.
People will use our network because they can make money when they trade their files and they can support their artists so the artists can continue to make the music they love. This is why people will use Bitmunk, not because we lock them into it with some kind of DRM or other control scheme.
Well, that's something, we obviously, cannot check -- we can't run psychoanalyses on all of our artists:).
If an artist complains to us that another artist has stolen his work we can take appropriate action on Bitmunk. The artist can also take legal action against the other artist on their own terms.
Why do you persistently ask such tough questions;)?
Our watermarking technology is very much a secondary function with regard to how the system works. We are much more interested in providing incentives to share files legally -- because that is what will really move people to do so, not restrictive and/or tracking measures on their activity.
We haven't looked very much into watermarking MIDI files, XML files, etc yet. There are steganography schemes for MIDI files. However, I understand that fundamentally, it certainly appears that one could not watermark an XML file by the very nature of what it is. Doesn't necessarily mean that someone can't be clever enough to figure something out, though likely it is impossible. Slashdot just posted a story about an exploit that allows watermarking of executables.
But in any case, its secondary -- and its probably further down the line for XML files, as they will most likely not be the most sold medium on Bitmunk. Its possible they might have to be sold without watermarking, but I don't think it would be that much of an issue, given the incentives there are to trade files legally on Bitmunk.
That was a very good question, however;). Sorry I couldn't answer it better for you.
I'm not sure I understand where the substantial cost is in the system. If you're speaking from a technological standpoint in response to private and public key signing, its not very costly at all. If you're speaking from a financial standpoint, it costs an artist no money to sign up and register or claim their creative works. It also costs a seller no money to distribute an artist's work.
So I don't know what costs you're talking about -- could you better explain what you mean?
"Why should they have to _register_ a work that they aren't claiming they own the copyright on?"
I think you're confusing artists and distributors (sellers) -- probably because I wasn't clear enough. Artists are not necessarily distributors on Bitmunk, though they can be. Artists (or copyright owners) simply make their work available for sale and set a royalty price, sellers (any user on Bitmunk) then can sell it for a price they set. The buyer pays a total of the royalty and seller price.
"All they may be claiming is that they have legal permission to distribute the work (either because it is public domain, copyrighted under a license that permits unrestricted distribution, or whatever)."
This is the position of the seller, not the artist. The seller doesn't need to claim or register any works, that's the copyright owner's job. The seller simply sells works that have already been registered and cleared for sale. Does that clear things up?
"If they have to authenticate their identity to share even those materials on the network, this network will be about as popular as penguins at the north pole."
Verifying your identity (if you're just a seller or buyer) is as easy as entering your credit card information. You put in your credit card, your name and address, and we run a check on it. Done:). Artists must go through a more rigorous process (send us photocopied ID).
"My point was that since you cannot detect the difference between a person who is sharing a work that is public domain or a freely distributable copyrighted work that never actually had such a watermark (eg, the latest distribution of [pick your favorite distro here] Linux) from a work that is copyrighted but had its watermark stripped (this is absolutely trivial to do, and can be automated with very little effort), that materials can be illegally shared over this network as certainly and easily as any other."
No, no file can be illegally shared over this network. Your example simply suggests that a file that was shared illegally previously could get onto the network -- but from that point on, it will be shared legally. You are correct in that there's really no mechanism for detecting that, but I see it better that a file that was traded illegally gets onto a legal network and starts getting the artist his or her money, rather than it remain in the illegal domain.
Please take a look at the help on our website, it will answer most of your questions and provide an explanation of how the system works (who artists, sellers, and buyers are, and what their function is on the network).
Collective licensing will not work for many reasons and here are the biggest ones I can think of off the top of my head:
1. It does not allow the consumer and artist to decide how much a work is worth. Instead, the total amount of money given to a network that supports this schema will be divided up according to the work's popularity.
2. It is incredibly easy to cheat the system for a particular artist; just set up a bunch of machines to download the artist's work to make it more popular. Or, if the popularity is decided by search queries, just create a script that will search for it a million times.
3. Makes Beethoven's work worth less than the latest "guy gets hit with shovel, so funny LOL!!1!" video just because everyone's got to see that video, but not everyone is a Beethoven fan.
4. Porn will get the most money because it is the most popular.
5. There is room for huge and unfair financial disparities: two people can both pay $5 to use a service, and one guy downloads a few songs, while the other guy downloads every song available for a measely $5. It is hardly reasonable to say that someone only needs to pay $5 to download thousands of songs.
Collective licensing unnecessarily cheapens the artist's work -- just because an artist only gets 10 downloads, doesn't mean the artist should only get 10 cents. If the artist's fans think the music is worth $10 a download and would therefore pay that, the artist should get paid $100, not 10 cents. Collective licensing is yet one more scheme that strips the artist from being able to choose his own prices and get paid what he's really worth. Its another scheme that simply hurts the artist and therefore hurts the rest of us as well.
"And how do you stop people from lying to the system, and putting works onto it that are in fact copyrighted and protected, but attempting to distribute them as if they were public domain?"
Users cannot just register or claim any work that they want to. They must first verify their identity with us to become artists. They have to provide us with enough information for us to be able to tell if they are who they say they are. If they send us a faked photocopy of their driver's license, or a fake business license, then they have committed a federal crime and will be prosecuted.
Our network is not anonymous -- and we take extra measures to ensure that artists are who they say they are and that they are the actual owners of copyrighted material before we allow it to be sold.
Of course its possible that they could steal Madonna's driver's license, copy it, and fax it to us. But not only is that extremely unlikely, it is also a very foolish thing to do considering that when we try to call the phone number they gave us and Madonna doesn't pick up... they've been caught committing a federal offense.
"Pay attention here... it is completely and totally impossible to institute _ANY_ kind of technological measures to stop people from being dishonest, so the chance this technology has of actually impacting illegal P2P is somewhere around zero."
We are well aware of this -- that's why we are focusing on providing incentives to share files legally; we are not just slapping a restrictive DRM on our files. You get paid and financially help the artists you like when you trade on our network -- you don't get that on any other P2P network.
Our digital watermarking is just a safe guard against the very few people that might put their music up on an illegal trading network. Most people that get their music on Bitmunk will trade it on Bitmunk, not on another network. There is no incentive to do that when they could trade the file and get paid, rather than trade it and not get paid. Also, since our watermarking is non-invasive, there is no incentive to crack it so you can use it on any device that you want -- you already can do that.
It takes 2 days because that's how long it really takes us to actually get the money cleared and to the user's bank account. It is too long for these days, but that's actually how it works with ACH/banks. We'd love for it to be quicker for well-trusted sellers.. and perhaps it will be in the future, but that is not in our control at the moment.
"If as you say you supply me with a number (say 15) keys so that I can upload an album of my homegrown music (1 key per file if I understand you correctly)."
I must have said something confusing in my last post, I'm sorry. We don't give you keys for uploading music, we give out keys for software.
If you're simply interested in getting your music onto the network, you don't need to worry about keys at all. You simply signup as an artist and upload your mp3's via our website. If you want to sell someone else's music, you use our sales server to associate mp3s with their respective creative works that we have catalogued and then set your prices. I'm sorry for the confusion.
"What is to stop me from uploading 1 of my tracks, and 14 tracks from (insert_popstar_here)?
What if I am not the only one doing it?"
If you want to become an artist on our network, you must send us information so we can verify your identity. We also make sure that you're the actual owner of whatever works you claim and upload to the network before we allow them to be sold.
Now, if anyone tries to sell a file on the network that isn't associated correctly (i.e. you use an mp3 of metallica, but you associate it as "mary's little lamb"), then the buyer who tries to purchase the song from you isn't going to be very happy:). He'll come to us and get the correct copy of the song for no extra charge, but we'll also know that you're not selling the right music to people. We'll let you know what you need to fix -- but if you keep doing it we'll have to assume you're doing it on purpose and fine or ban you:(.
"(ps, I think the best solution to most of the issues I have raised is to impliment a karma/moderation type system for your uploaders. Look around slash for some ideas)"
We have exactly that:). Buyers and sellers can vote for each other on the system, and when transactions go awry, your "karma" can go down.
Again, sorry if I misled you about the keys -- that has to do with verifying 3rd party client software, not content on the network.
"What happens to all the creations in the public domain? Are those unable to be traded on Bitmunk?"
Public domain works can be traded over Bitmunk.
"Can a person who has copyright over a work register while asking for no royalty?"
Yes.
"What happens when the Bitmunk database is overburdened with requests? Will there be another database, or is this a false P2P?"
Our database is distributed over several machines (with more to come).
"I'm also not sure that simply giving a credit card number (see second to last question) is enough to guarantee authenticity of ownership."
We don't just verify a credit card number. Artists must send us a photocopied identification card via fax or email. We also have access to the US copyright database to verify copyright owners. I'll have to take a look at that help item you linked to to make sure its not misleading. Thanks:).
There's an incentive to crack something that is DRM'd. The incentive? DRM.
Bitmunk's digital watermarking is non-invasive. You can play your music on any device that you want to with any piece of software that you want to. We use watermarking so that we are able to determine if a file has floated onto an illegal file-trading service. But there's little reason for that to happen anyway; if you purchase your music from Bitmunk, then simply share it on Bitmunk.
We don't believe in making all of our users out to be criminals. That's what DRM does -- it tries to prevent criminal behavior by assuming every user is a criminal. It ends up controlling how you can use the music for yourself. We don't do that. Burn the music to CD, play it in your car, take it to work in your mp3 player of choice. The music is yours. If you want to trade it, just trade it over Bitmunk and get paid and support the artist while doing it.
"And then there's the usual problem: if you're charging people for something, then what is your customers' incentive to stay on the p2p network to help distribute it to other customers?"
Any user can be a seller on Bitmunk. When you sell a work, you get paid a price you have previously set. You don't get charged to sell on Bitmunk. You can get paid and support the artist on Bitmunk, no other P2P service supports that.
You can make money and support the artist/creator on Bitmunk. By supporting the artist, you give them an incentive to keep creating whatever it is that you love to enjoy yourself and share with others.
This is not something that we currently support, but if we are successful enough, it is certainly an option. We are pro-public domain, free exchange of ideas at Digital Bazaar, but we also recognize that there are persons who want to make a living by creating ideas, and music, etc. If people are willing to pay a little bit for those ideas and music, then the creators ought to have the opportunity to make a living in that manner.
Bitmunk is simply the vehicle that makes that possible.
Slashdot Mirror
"That's not on you more that's on your users, they sell too, they need a license too that says that they can win money with that IP. Nowadays law doesn't allow that. We're labeled just as "consumers" (maybe your system could change that)."
Yes, our system has a "new license" -- that the artist simply selects on the website. The artist chooses "redistribution on Bitmunk" as a part of their license, which allows all users on Bitmunk to redistribute their work. They must choose this in order for their work to be available for sale. By choosing this, it grants all Bitmunk users the right to trade their work over Bitmunk.
Well have to see how this pans out with respect to all of the major players in the music industry. We are hopeful that they will see us as the solution to the problem and work with us. Thank you for your offering your opinion.
Bitmunk is designed to help grow the industry of ideas -- and allow people that want to make a living off of their ideas come and sell them to others who want to share them. We don't believe in taking control away from any of the people involved in that process -- rather we believe in empowering them all so that everyone can benefit. We believe this is the best solution possible and we will do our best to achieve it.
It may end up that we were only a stepping stone in making a truly fair and mutually beneficial marketplace of ideas possible, however, we believe that we will be the keystone.
"One thing more, as I said earlier, I will watch bitmunk (damn! I always write chipmunk in the first place :-) closely. For me it's the first time I see a P2P effort that seems to try to solve the problem to both users and corporations. But that means you're fighting with both, that's why you have my respect."
Well thank you very much, it is certainly appreciated :).
"No offense, It just doen't appeal to me.""
None taken. If all you do is trade public domain works, that's completely understandable.
"The total will be the actual price Except if the artist wants it to be free and set 0$ too."
The artist sets his or her price just like a seller does. An artist can set a price of zero.
"Serverless : (...)there's a central server that set "default" or base prices. This gives the owner of the server the ability to set very high prices to items he wants to ban from the network, or to "favor" some items againt others."
We are the default server. We do not set higher or lower prices for different works in an effort to ban them or favor them. Our default server uses a multiplier on the royalty the artist sets. We want every work on this network to sell as much as possible, why would we try and favor any particular one? We do not.
"Open Source : There will be a single client (...). Not if it's open source, this is a contradiction. If you release the code of the client anyone can see how the protocol works and create a free server, and you don't want it because there must be only one "central" server."
Here's how software will work with Bitmunk:
The vast majority of the client will be open source. We obviously cannot make it all open source for the reason you have just stated. We give out a closed source interface that handles the file distribution protocol -- making sure that the system is fair and the artist gets paid. The rest of the client is opensource. This small part is invisible to the end user, and it does not limit the variety possible in designing clients. Clients simply need this "plugin" to make it actually work on the network.
"IP : There's no need to adapt IP to make this work, our model already does it. Quote from a CD: Unauthorised copying hiring lending public performance and broadcasting of this record prohibited! (Tubular Bells 2003, that in fact it's copy protected against digital copy and I can't listen in my portable MP3 player)"
And the reason the artist or label has chosen that license is because users are using illegal P2P networks rather than a legal one ... because up until now a legal one did not exist. Once most people start trading on Bitmunk, you won't see these kind of license restrictions because they won't be necessary.
"You'll need to get permission from the music industry to do this, as well as all users of your network. Your model really it's an advance over illegal P2P networks, but does not give you permission from the authors just because seems to be legal."
We do get permission from the artist before anything is allowed to be sold on the network. What is wrong with that?
"As I said, this doesn't appeal to me. If you were wondering, I do buy CD, DVD and a lot of other things from authors I respect, even if it's protected against digital copy. But eMule gives me another choice if I think that the price it's not fair."
And so does Bitmunk. Buy from a lower seller. You'll even be able to offer the artist your own price by putting some money down (with the ability to withdraw it again) -- and if enough people do that and the artist realizes he could make a profit, he'll accept everyone's money and they'll get the music.
"Industry doesn't give me a refund if I go to cinema to see a film and I don't like it."
We offer sample previews on our website that you can check out before buying.
"I will pay 10$ to see the extended version of "Return of the king" in a cinema, but not even 1$ to see "SW: Episode III". I do care about this, the industry don't. And my position doesn't have much to do with your system. Your system it's not fair to the users, just to the industry."
You opinion has everything to do with this system! See what I just wrote above -- if there's a movie you'll pay a $1 for, put your money down. The artist will see t
It is possible to distribute free works on Bitmunk, but that's not what the service was designed for. There are plenty of other services that allow you to distribute works freely already. The problem was that there wasn't a P2P network that allowed the artist to get reimbursed and the user to buy and resell works. Bitmunk was created to help those people that make their living off of creating new ideas, music, movies, etc.
It is great if people want to create works and put them in the public domain for free distribution, but there are already many, many different networks available for those works to be passed around in. There isn't a problem with trading free works -- so there's nothing to solve. You agree, right?
There is a problem with trading copyrighted works, and Bitmunk solves that problem.
If people want to make a living off of creating they certainly should be able to if people want to buy their work. Bitmunk allows them to do just that.
The Sales Verification Authority (SVA) is the key element that I think you're missing here -- it prevents unauthorized trading from taking place. Every single trade must be cleared by the SVA. Two peers sign a contract that must go through the SVA before a download can begin; the SVA verifies that the creative works that are to be transferred are valid. If the seller has associated a file with the wrong creative work, then the buyer will complain to us after getting a bogus file and the seller will be fined and/or banned from the network (if the offenses continue).
You'll have a much better understanding of how the network works if you read the materials written about on our website. The network has a third party (the SVA) that clears trading, it ensures that trading is legal. I think you're leaving this party out of the equation -- and that is why you're coming to the conclusion that you are.
The next version of our software will have this exact appearance to Joe User. There will be a single client that does all of the search and file price setting. You won't even know, unless you care to read about our technology, that there's a central server that keeps the catalog of creative works. It will appear like Napster to the average user -- only they get to set a price or prices for all of their songs.
Our software will also be open source, fast, and reliable. There's no need to adapt IP to make this work, our model already does it.
To the average user it will work like this:
1. Register as a user on the website.
2. Put money in your account.
3. Download the client.
4. Use the client's interface to select the files you want to share and set your prices.
5. Start sharing -- search for what you want and click buy; it downloads -- play your music.
That's it.
"About "selling" others IP, I'm not a lawyer, but probably the owners of those IP won't allow me or others to win money. They want to squeeze every buck. I really want to see what the music industry has to say about this."
There's no reason why artists would rather have their work be traded for free on an illegal trading network or for a measely return on an online music store when they can get a price they set and they deserve on Bitmunk.
Bitmunk is a competitive marketplace, it is not tied down to any sort of pricing model -- other than consumer demand. Prices will fluctuate according to actual true worth of a song to the consumer.
"Btw. What happens if I want to sell an album for let's say... 0$. Will the system allow me?"
Yes, it will. But that just means you get $0 for every file trade, it doesn't mean that the buyer doesn't have to pay for the album. You set a price that you want for every sale, just like the artist does. The total will be the actual price.
"Because if the system does not control it's users... or does it? DRM?"
No, the system does not control its users, we use incentives. We do not believe in assuming our users are criminals and trying to control them with DRM. Our network will succeed because there are financial and social incentives to use it. You trade your files for money on our network, and the artist who makes the music you like gets his or her royalty. This doesn't happen on any other network.
One of the best parts of our network is that it empowers the independent artist and the end-user. It gives the little guy control. It lets the artist get paid something he or she deserves. Then the user that buys that work keeps his or her fair use rights and can even resell as many times as they want for profit.
The P2P part of our network is the actual file download -- where the greatest bandwidth is required.
Please read more about this in the white paper and through the help items on our site.
Its much more likely that you'll produce music that's original or different enough from what you may have subconsciously picked it up from than otherwise. There are plenty of other people that don't give the possibility that they subconsciously picked up their song lyrics from the radio any thought at all -- and they are very successful.
If everyone was so worried about it -- no new music would ever get created.
And yes, I'd say other P2P technology was "first-generation" -- Bitmunk is "next-generation." Its designed to fix the problems of the first-generation of P2P products by allowing artists who want to make money off of doing what they love to be able to do so on a P2P network ... and by allowing users to trade their work and get paid while doing it.
People will use our network because they can make money when they trade their files and they can support their artists so the artists can continue to make the music they love. This is why people will use Bitmunk, not because we lock them into it with some kind of DRM or other control scheme.
If an artist complains to us that another artist has stolen his work we can take appropriate action on Bitmunk. The artist can also take legal action against the other artist on their own terms.
Why do you persistently ask such tough questions ;)?
We haven't looked very much into watermarking MIDI files, XML files, etc yet. There are steganography schemes for MIDI files. However, I understand that fundamentally, it certainly appears that one could not watermark an XML file by the very nature of what it is. Doesn't necessarily mean that someone can't be clever enough to figure something out, though likely it is impossible. Slashdot just posted a story about an exploit that allows watermarking of executables.
But in any case, its secondary -- and its probably further down the line for XML files, as they will most likely not be the most sold medium on Bitmunk. Its possible they might have to be sold without watermarking, but I don't think it would be that much of an issue, given the incentives there are to trade files legally on Bitmunk.
That was a very good question, however ;). Sorry I couldn't answer it better for you.
So I don't know what costs you're talking about -- could you better explain what you mean?
Thanks :).
I think you're confusing artists and distributors (sellers) -- probably because I wasn't clear enough. Artists are not necessarily distributors on Bitmunk, though they can be. Artists (or copyright owners) simply make their work available for sale and set a royalty price, sellers (any user on Bitmunk) then can sell it for a price they set. The buyer pays a total of the royalty and seller price.
"All they may be claiming is that they have legal permission to distribute the work (either because it is public domain, copyrighted under a license that permits unrestricted distribution, or whatever)."
This is the position of the seller, not the artist. The seller doesn't need to claim or register any works, that's the copyright owner's job. The seller simply sells works that have already been registered and cleared for sale. Does that clear things up?
"If they have to authenticate their identity to share even those materials on the network, this network will be about as popular as penguins at the north pole."
Verifying your identity (if you're just a seller or buyer) is as easy as entering your credit card information. You put in your credit card, your name and address, and we run a check on it. Done :). Artists must go through a more rigorous process (send us photocopied ID).
"My point was that since you cannot detect the difference between a person who is sharing a work that is public domain or a freely distributable copyrighted work that never actually had such a watermark (eg, the latest distribution of [pick your favorite distro here] Linux) from a work that is copyrighted but had its watermark stripped (this is absolutely trivial to do, and can be automated with very little effort), that materials can be illegally shared over this network as certainly and easily as any other."
No, no file can be illegally shared over this network. Your example simply suggests that a file that was shared illegally previously could get onto the network -- but from that point on, it will be shared legally. You are correct in that there's really no mechanism for detecting that, but I see it better that a file that was traded illegally gets onto a legal network and starts getting the artist his or her money, rather than it remain in the illegal domain.
Please take a look at the help on our website, it will answer most of your questions and provide an explanation of how the system works (who artists, sellers, and buyers are, and what their function is on the network).
1. It does not allow the consumer and artist to decide how much a work is worth. Instead, the total amount of money given to a network that supports this schema will be divided up according to the work's popularity.
2. It is incredibly easy to cheat the system for a particular artist; just set up a bunch of machines to download the artist's work to make it more popular. Or, if the popularity is decided by search queries, just create a script that will search for it a million times.
3. Makes Beethoven's work worth less than the latest "guy gets hit with shovel, so funny LOL!!1!" video just because everyone's got to see that video, but not everyone is a Beethoven fan.
4. Porn will get the most money because it is the most popular.
5. There is room for huge and unfair financial disparities: two people can both pay $5 to use a service, and one guy downloads a few songs, while the other guy downloads every song available for a measely $5. It is hardly reasonable to say that someone only needs to pay $5 to download thousands of songs.
Collective licensing unnecessarily cheapens the artist's work -- just because an artist only gets 10 downloads, doesn't mean the artist should only get 10 cents. If the artist's fans think the music is worth $10 a download and would therefore pay that, the artist should get paid $100, not 10 cents. Collective licensing is yet one more scheme that strips the artist from being able to choose his own prices and get paid what he's really worth. Its another scheme that simply hurts the artist and therefore hurts the rest of us as well.
Users cannot just register or claim any work that they want to. They must first verify their identity with us to become artists. They have to provide us with enough information for us to be able to tell if they are who they say they are. If they send us a faked photocopy of their driver's license, or a fake business license, then they have committed a federal crime and will be prosecuted.
Our network is not anonymous -- and we take extra measures to ensure that artists are who they say they are and that they are the actual owners of copyrighted material before we allow it to be sold.
Of course its possible that they could steal Madonna's driver's license, copy it, and fax it to us. But not only is that extremely unlikely, it is also a very foolish thing to do considering that when we try to call the phone number they gave us and Madonna doesn't pick up ... they've been caught committing a federal offense.
"Pay attention here... it is completely and totally impossible to institute _ANY_ kind of technological measures to stop people from being dishonest, so the chance this technology has of actually impacting illegal P2P is somewhere around zero."
We are well aware of this -- that's why we are focusing on providing incentives to share files legally; we are not just slapping a restrictive DRM on our files. You get paid and financially help the artists you like when you trade on our network -- you don't get that on any other P2P network.
Our digital watermarking is just a safe guard against the very few people that might put their music up on an illegal trading network. Most people that get their music on Bitmunk will trade it on Bitmunk, not on another network. There is no incentive to do that when they could trade the file and get paid, rather than trade it and not get paid. Also, since our watermarking is non-invasive, there is no incentive to crack it so you can use it on any device that you want -- you already can do that.
Other services:
Bitmunk:
You can share your files for free illegally and hurt the artist, or share them legally and make money and support the artist ...
Thanks for the comments though :).
lol, we have actually discussed this before. We promise not to build SkyNet.
No problem :).
"If as you say you supply me with a number (say 15) keys so that I can upload an album of my homegrown music (1 key per file if I understand you correctly)."
I must have said something confusing in my last post, I'm sorry. We don't give you keys for uploading music, we give out keys for software.
If you're simply interested in getting your music onto the network, you don't need to worry about keys at all. You simply signup as an artist and upload your mp3's via our website. If you want to sell someone else's music, you use our sales server to associate mp3s with their respective creative works that we have catalogued and then set your prices. I'm sorry for the confusion.
"What is to stop me from uploading 1 of my tracks, and 14 tracks from (insert_popstar_here)? What if I am not the only one doing it?"
If you want to become an artist on our network, you must send us information so we can verify your identity. We also make sure that you're the actual owner of whatever works you claim and upload to the network before we allow them to be sold.
Now, if anyone tries to sell a file on the network that isn't associated correctly (i.e. you use an mp3 of metallica, but you associate it as "mary's little lamb"), then the buyer who tries to purchase the song from you isn't going to be very happy :). He'll come to us and get the correct copy of the song for no extra charge, but we'll also know that you're not selling the right music to people. We'll let you know what you need to fix -- but if you keep doing it we'll have to assume you're doing it on purpose and fine or ban you :(.
"(ps, I think the best solution to most of the issues I have raised is to impliment a karma/moderation type system for your uploaders. Look around slash for some ideas)"
We have exactly that :). Buyers and sellers can vote for each other on the system, and when transactions go awry, your "karma" can go down.
Again, sorry if I misled you about the keys -- that has to do with verifying 3rd party client software, not content on the network.
Public domain works can be traded over Bitmunk.
"Can a person who has copyright over a work register while asking for no royalty?"
Yes.
"What happens when the Bitmunk database is overburdened with requests? Will there be another database, or is this a false P2P?"
Our database is distributed over several machines (with more to come).
"I'm also not sure that simply giving a credit card number (see second to last question) is enough to guarantee authenticity of ownership."
We don't just verify a credit card number. Artists must send us a photocopied identification card via fax or email. We also have access to the US copyright database to verify copyright owners. I'll have to take a look at that help item you linked to to make sure its not misleading. Thanks :).
There's an incentive to crack something that is DRM'd. The incentive? DRM.
Bitmunk's digital watermarking is non-invasive. You can play your music on any device that you want to with any piece of software that you want to. We use watermarking so that we are able to determine if a file has floated onto an illegal file-trading service. But there's little reason for that to happen anyway; if you purchase your music from Bitmunk, then simply share it on Bitmunk.
We don't believe in making all of our users out to be criminals. That's what DRM does -- it tries to prevent criminal behavior by assuming every user is a criminal. It ends up controlling how you can use the music for yourself. We don't do that. Burn the music to CD, play it in your car, take it to work in your mp3 player of choice. The music is yours. If you want to trade it, just trade it over Bitmunk and get paid and support the artist while doing it.
Any user can be a seller on Bitmunk. When you sell a work, you get paid a price you have previously set. You don't get charged to sell on Bitmunk. You can get paid and support the artist on Bitmunk, no other P2P service supports that.
You can make money and support the artist/creator on Bitmunk. By supporting the artist, you give them an incentive to keep creating whatever it is that you love to enjoy yourself and share with others.
Bitmunk is simply the vehicle that makes that possible.