Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×
The Internet Entertainment

Peer Impact Signs 3 Major Record Labels 187

An anonymous reader submits "Three of the Big Four music labels have reached licensing agreements to provide their music to the soon-to-launch Peer Impact network, a peer-to-peer service that enables legal music file-sharing."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Peer Impact Signs 3 Major Record Labels

Comments Filter:
  • Legal? (Score:3, Funny)

    by KennyP ( 724304 ) on Wednesday November 24, 2004 @11:19AM (#10909590)
    The next thing I know, someone will be telling me that speaking my peace in public is legal!

    Kenny P.
    Visualize Whirled P.'s
  • DRM? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by grub ( 11606 ) <slashdot@grub.net> on Wednesday November 24, 2004 @11:19AM (#10909591) Homepage Journal

    Are the files distributed on that network DRM'd somehow? If so that will doom it and give the RIAA more ammo for the "illegal P2P is killing us!" rant.
    • Re:DRM? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by aldousd666 ( 640240 ) on Wednesday November 24, 2004 @11:33AM (#10909704) Journal
      I think you're right. This actually may be a conspiracy to do just that. DRM is easy enough to get around anyway -- plug an mp3 recorder into the lineout of your sound card, record, and distribute. This could only stand to make MORE files available illegally. It may not affect the numbers though, it's probably a pretty good bet that most cd's that are ever released are ripped and illegally traded anyway.
      • I would imagine EVERY CD has been ripped and encoded by now. And OOP Vinyl, etc. People are even ripping the audio out of DVD movies.

        As far as creating a non-DRM version out of a DRM copy, your method is one way. I'd have to guess though, that going through that much trouble, one would probably rather rip at a higher bitrate right from the source than what the Industry will be offering.

      • Re:DRM? (Score:3, Insightful)

        by psyco484 ( 555249 )
        I doubt the majority of this software's intended userbase have the capacity to even do that. Sure some people will be able to but not enough to cause a serious problem.

        While it's good to use caution when dealing with DRM (it is a foot-in-the-door technology), if there aren't massively available legal methods for p2p filesharing, then the industry is just going to tighten the vice on current p2p even more than they are already. The problem that might arise from this is not that more sources of 'illegal'

    • They are DRM'd. You can't post your own information, but you are paid for allowing others to download files your purchased from your p2p node.
  • Uhmm.... (Score:5, Funny)

    by thebra ( 707939 ) on Wednesday November 24, 2004 @11:20AM (#10909592) Homepage Journal
    Now There's Another Place To Get Your Jessica Simpson Fix, Legally

    I sure hope they have better artist than this or you can count me out.
    • Re:Uhmm.... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by badasscat ( 563442 ) <basscadet75@NoSpam.yahoo.com> on Wednesday November 24, 2004 @11:27AM (#10909645)
      Now There's Another Place To Get Your Jessica Simpson Fix, Legally

      I sure hope they have better artist than this or you can count me out.


      They list some other artists there and none of them are any better. Yet they later say they want PI to be have the most "diverse" content. Yeah, right - everything from Britney Spears to Jessica Simpson!

      Yet another indication of how clueless the music industry is these days.

      I also checked out the PI web site and there's almost no information there about the service. How does it work? Is this that stupid thing I read about a while ago where you're actually just sharing links to music rather than the music itself? In other words, it's just like publishing your playlist somewhere and then linking to some music publisher's store? If so, I don't even really consider it P2P. And I'm sure the quality's going to suck (128k files, no doubt) and there's got to be some pretty onerous DRM tacked on too.

      No thanks. I'll stick to buying and ripping my own CD's. You'd think the industry would love guys like me who actually go out and pay for their music (when I actually find a new artist I like, that is, which isn't often these days), but given the DRM they're trying to force onto CD's, they obviously don't. It remains the only viable option as far as I'm concerned, though, if you want legal music for the best price with the greatest selection, and you want the highest-quality compressed files along with it.
      • Re:Uhmm.... (Score:2, Informative)

        by grub ( 11606 )

        They list some other artists there and none of them are any better. Yet they later say they want PI to be have the most "diverse" content. Yeah, right - everything from Britney Spears to Jessica Simpson!

        I've been using eMusic.com [emusic.com] for several weeks now. I really like it: track prices are very reasonable, no DRM (you get MP3s) and there are loads of great and diverse bands you can find without having to wade through Britney and Justin.

        I have no affiliation, just a very satisfied customer.
      • It is possible, of course, that they will only release a subset of the music (like radio). Much like some bands distribute songs (usually low quality) from their websites. Creating a P2P service that allows trading of these so-called free songs that introduce people to music might be what they are thinking, although that is speculation.
    • what is this mysterious /. error? i dont deny it, but FF-1.0 + Fedora 3 doesnt show it.
      • I'm using FF 1.0 on WinXP and I get it all the time. All of the text ends up in the wrong place, the page looks almost blank. Indeed, the CTL +, CTL - does work.
      • All the comments overlap over the righthand modules (Sections, Help, Stories,etc), or sometimes it's even worse and they comments have a width of like 4000 or something and overlap stuff as well.

        It's weird, because it only happens very sporatically.
    • Re:Uhmm.... (Score:3, Funny)

      by KUHurdler ( 584689 )
      "Now There's Another Place To Get Your Jessica Simpson Fix, Legally"

      Are we still talking about music here?
  • by jarich ( 733129 ) on Wednesday November 24, 2004 @11:20AM (#10909595) Homepage Journal
    If we steal it, they will come?

    :)

  • "sharing" (Score:5, Insightful)

    by doowy ( 241688 ) on Wednesday November 24, 2004 @11:22AM (#10909609) Homepage
    this isn't really 'sharing' as their press releases would have you believe.

    It is 'sharing' as in sharing your bandwidth. You still pay for the download. Wurld Media gets a cut and so do the labels (and presumaby the artists).

    The difference between something like this and iTunes is that they are going to try to sell it with the "p2p" sex-appeal to lure people in.

    Since it is p2p, it will cut down on their bandwidth costs in a big way.

    If the P2P protocol and/or client isn't superior to whats available (for 'free') to people, it won't fly.

    If it IS superior, how long until we see a 'lite' version of their client that authenticates with an alternative server (or none at all) that gets widely distributed and used as a seperate and 'free' p2p network?

    This one might be interesting.
    • Re:"sharing" (Score:2, Interesting)

      by TheKidWho ( 705796 )
      Seems like a DRMed bit torrent to me.
    • Re:"sharing" (Score:3, Interesting)

      by mordors9 ( 665662 )
      It's going to be interesting to see the price structure they come up with and also how they monitor transfers. As you say it sounds like they want us to provide the bandwidth. Will it be a proprietary p2p setup. Will their server be the only tracker? Will they provide the only transferrable songs?
    • Re:"sharing" (Score:3, Interesting)

      I'm thinking it will be similar to bittorrent in that once you download a song from them, you help unload the server load as other's download it. They still track the downloads and bill the downloader, but with reduced server load and it gets the PR hype of P2P. They confused the next generation into thinking that P2P means Pay to Play and they're rolling in a new generation of mindless drones.
      • Re:"sharing" (Score:5, Interesting)

        by nutrock69 ( 446385 ) on Wednesday November 24, 2004 @11:56AM (#10909856)
        So, let me get this straight...

        I buy a song, download it with their app, then I'm considered a sharer. Someone else buys the song, pays the company, then downloads the song from me.

        Am I going to get a "Shipping & Handling" fee from the company for storing the song on my pc for someone else to download? Who's going to be paying me for my bandwidth spike if the song is popular? Am I going to be required to share every song I buy 24/7 so that it's available for others to download when they buy?

        Sounds like a pretty good scam to me. Selling music for someone else and you don't even have to store it on your own servers or use any of your own bandwidth except for the tracker.

        mmm... I smell a patent being filled out...
        • Sounds precisely like how commonly used P2P software works at the moment. Except, you actually pay for content which would be illegal on other P2P apps - a novel concept, eh?
        • Am I going to get a "Shipping & Handling" fee

          I'd expect the cost of buying the track would be lower if the bandwidth costs for the selling organisation are to be partly shared by the customers. Oh wait, I seem to have my mindless optimism chip turned on again...

        • Re:"sharing" (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Penguinshit ( 591885 )

          I think that sounds exactly like the "for-fee" version of Napster we all hoped that the RIAA would support many years ago.

          Sadly, the RIAA missed the boat on that one and in the process created a much larger, harder-core, set of people intent on acquiring free (as in gratis) music.
        • You are correct. You will get paid for providing the bandwidth. They try to make it simple for you to use that to buy more music to share, but I believe they'll even cut you a check.
    • Re:"sharing" (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Ubergrendle ( 531719 ) on Wednesday November 24, 2004 @11:48AM (#10909812) Journal
      I agree with your take on the strategy. However, I optimistically see this as a possible building block for a more comprehensive 'on demand' strategy. When I say 'strategy', i mean it as a 'business opportunity in the making' vs 'deliberate action on the part of the labels'.

      #1. Make it p2p so that operating costs are defrayed by subscribers.
      #2. Secure login, unique key/identifier, etc.
      #3. Unlimited access to back catalogue. Variety of bitrates and formats of files allowed.
      #4. Client contains advertisements in way of discrete banners, controlled by p2p service (another source of revenue).
      #5. Monthly fee equivalent roughly to that of a MMORPG, or basic cable/telephone service. Say $20 USD a month. Some respectable caps can be in place (say 10gb a month, or only so much bandwidth per second)
      #6. Tracking mechanisms used to identify # of downloads per file. Artists compensated based on volume of traffic.


      Such a service would be ridicuously popular and successful IMHO. If hundreds of thousands would pay $19.95 a month to play everquest or Ultima online on a indefinite basis, think of the audience available today? Music is a much bigger target audience than MMORG, is easier to deliver, and has longer lasting appeal.

      Record labels, listen to marketing 101. "Market the sizzle, not the steak.". Files = steak. There will ALWAYS be file traders. These people you would never gain as clients no matter what you do. However, convenience = sizzle. Why would someone pay $3.50 for a coffee at Starbucks? Because of the experience. Focus on the experience.

      • by kkovach ( 267551 )
        Very well said. Lots of good points.

        Now, if we could only get the people at the record labels to enrole for Marketing 101.

        - Kevin
        • I think they'd flunk a few chapters...

          1. "The Customer is always right". aka "Suing customers is bad for business." aka "How NOT to alienate a customer base."

          2. Business ethics. Okay, they fail the whole semester...

          3. Technology is your friend. aka "How to learn to adapt and love technology 10 years earlier" aka "The VCR will not destroy your industry."

          4. Quality Assurance. Okay, they fail this on the basis of Milli Vanilli, Cher, Britney Spears, MC Hammer...oi vey...
      • Re:"sharing" (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Ignignot ( 782335 )
        Why would someone pay $3.50 for a coffee at Starbucks? Because of the experience.

        And here I was thinking that people do it because they have shit for brains and wouldn't know good coffee if it burned their woo-hoo's off!
      • offtopic? yes!

        Not that Starbucks isn't the most evil coffee store out there. But, if you just get a plain cup of coffee you only pay around $1.50. I'm not too much of a coffee snob, but at least at Starbucks I know what I get regardless where I am, and it's in my experience much better than your average gas station's assortment. Other viable options would be a "real" coffee shop but you're not going to save a significant amount of money, and you could go to other chains which in most cases offer the advant

        • I hear what both you, and Ignignot (782335)'s post above are talking about... I was using Starbucks as an example of taking something with little value and turning it into a profitable experience.

          I avoid Starbucks like the plague, but have a very laissez-faire attitude towards them...if people want to buy their product, more power to them. I'd feel better about it if they committed to 'fair trade practices' coffee beans, but otherwise live and let live.
      • I think you've got to idea, except you're missing some details. #1 this will be no monthly fee, #2 the users get paid for providing the download bandwidth.

    • "It is 'sharing' as in sharing your bandwidth. You still pay for the download. Wurld Media gets a cut and so do the labels (and presumaby the artists)."

      I've seen nothing to indicate that there wouldn't be plenty of free, authorized content on the service -- ads will surely be a major part of their business model, just as it is with Kazaa. While the labels would be providing some non-free content, it'd be up to you whether you wanted to buy it.

    • The big feature is you get paid for providing your bandwidth to others on the p2p network.

      Also, you can download from many different nodes simultaneously, since the content on the system is completely controlled. I believe it's an SHA-1 hash they're using to verify that each copy is a legitimate copy.

      I highly doubt there will ever be a lite version of this client. They've already thought of that.
  • Paying to Share (Score:5, Insightful)

    by 93,000 ( 150453 ) on Wednesday November 24, 2004 @11:23AM (#10909613)
    If you're paying money to 'share', aren't you really buying rather than sharing?

    It seems like they're bastardising the concept of sharing to exploit the term's popularity.
  • by jmcmunn ( 307798 ) on Wednesday November 24, 2004 @11:23AM (#10909614)

    Can anyone provide a link that actually has some useful info on this subject? The three links in the post essentially tell me nothing about the new service. How much will it cost? How does it work? Can we get some useful info other than "new mystery service coming soon!!" Slashdot must be partnered with them somehow...giving them free advertising.
  • Will the files be DRM'ed, and if so, how obtrusively? Does your music vanish if you cancel some sort of subscription? Will it be a subscription model, with monthly fees, or will it be a flat fee per song like iTunes? What format will the files be in? What platform(s) will the peering software run on? Will the labels' entire catalogs be available, or just some lesser artists and/or selections?
  • link to peer impact (Score:4, Informative)

    by ifreakshow ( 613584 ) * on Wednesday November 24, 2004 @11:26AM (#10909630)
    • The FAQ they provide does not give enough valuable information to make a decision on how they will work this set up. I can understand not listing any cost this early but other pertinent information is missing.

      The primary concern of mine would be the usability of the music I download. Will I be able to burn it to disc? Will it require proprietary software to run or wil I be able to play it in any system that I normally listen to music on? For me to pay a fee to download a song or full album/CD I personally
  • super sexy good (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Saeed al-Sahaf ( 665390 ) on Wednesday November 24, 2004 @11:26AM (#10909635) Homepage
    Why is this news? It's just another commercial delivery system. Does using P2P somehow make it super sexy good? Thanks Tim. Not.
    • Re:super sexy good (Score:3, Insightful)

      by rpdillon ( 715137 )
      I think it's news because it's the music industry's first foray into commercialized p2p music distribution, and apparently they've managed to convince some large companies that it's a worthwhile endevour. News to me.
  • by Weaselmancer ( 533834 ) on Wednesday November 24, 2004 @11:28AM (#10909656)

    ...to allow a piece of software created by 3 of the "big 4" to run on their system?

    You don't even need to be a tinfoil hat type to see that this is an extremely bad idea. I have no wish to be Pwn3d by the RIAA.

    Can't wait to see what kinda packets people find this thing sending back to its masters.

    • Well it's all quite convienent you see. In addition to gettin the lattest music through a proprietary p2p sharing network (is that an oxymoron?), and helping the major record lables save on bandwidth; They will even scan your hard drive and remove the illegal mp3's that you accidentaly put on your system. Isn't that nice?

      BTW: I wonder if you can actually engage in sharing of files, ie: This song rocks, here check it out before you buy it. Or you just lend your DSL to MGM.

      Here's a novel concept: Maybe shar
    • They didn't create it anymore than they created itunes.
    • > So, who's gonna be the first... ...to allow a piece of software created by 3 of the "big 4" to run on their system?
      >
      > You don't even need to be a tinfoil hat type to see that this is an extremely bad idea. I have no wish to be Pwn3d by the RIAA.
      >
      > Can't wait to see what kinda packets people find this thing sending back to its masters.

      And yet, about half the people on Slashdot seem to have no problem with Steam.

      What happens when SafeDisc and SecuRom start to go this route, and you c

  • Won't Work (Score:3, Insightful)

    by maskedbishounen ( 772174 ) on Wednesday November 24, 2004 @11:28AM (#10909658)
    If I'm reading this correctly, this is a server-side addition that more or less bills you for downloading music through "normal" P2P networks -- normal as in ones with their software running.

    And this is supposed to work, uhh, how, exactly?

    Oh, and let me guess. You downloaded a bad rip and want a better one? Better pay up. Again.

    In short: Nothing to see here. Move along....
    • I think they'll seed the network with approved files and only those files can be shared (based on their hash or whatever else). Presumably the seeded files will be consistent quality as they'll be coming from the labels directly.
  • Legal? (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 24, 2004 @11:29AM (#10909659)
    Legal P2P file sharing? Where's the fun in that?
  • How will the music-sharing function of Peer Impact differ from peer-to-peer (P2P) sites and paid music download sites?
    Peer Impact is a proprietary, patent-pending business model that will not be announced to the public until the Fall of 2004.


    There are so many things wrong with this that I can't bear to go on...
  • Doesn't look good (Score:5, Informative)

    by efedora ( 180114 ) <efedora@yahoo.com> on Wednesday November 24, 2004 @11:33AM (#10909700) Homepage
    From Pest Patrol http://www.pestpatrol.com/PestInfo/w/wurldmedia.as p#Overview [pestpatrol.com]
    WURLD Media, Inc.

    WurldMedia partners with StreamCast Networks, Inc., developers of Morpheus. A download of Morpheus will result in the installation of components associated with AtomWire and other browser helper objects. Components within a Morpheus installation will carry a variety of developer names within the code, including ESD Technologies, Inc., John Marshall, My Way, Summit Software Company, Wurld Media Inc., and XMLAuthor Inc.
  • soon-to-launch Peer Impact network, a peer-to-peer service that enables legal music file-sharing."

    Shouldnt that read: that disables illegal music file-sharing?
  • From their FAQ [peerimpact.com].

    Is Peer Impact available outside the U.S.?
    No. Due to licensing restrictions, Peer Impact is currently available to U.S. residents only.
  • Legal P2P?! (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anita Coney ( 648748 ) on Wednesday November 24, 2004 @11:37AM (#10909731) Homepage
    That's like a highway where it's legal to speed, but takes you nowhere. That's like a legal drug, that doesn't get you high. That's like stealing your own stuff! Where's the fun in that?!

    • "That's like a highway where it's legal to speed, but takes you nowhere. That's like a legal drug, that doesn't get you high. That's like stealing your own stuff! Where's the fun in that?!"

      I know you were joking, but Slashdotters commonly point out legitimate, legal uses for P2P. Software developers can release demo versions, open source/creative commons/etc. software can be distributed, and unsigned bands can distribute their own stuff.

      Of course, that probably makes up 1% of Kazaa traffic, but nonet

  • How does this thing make money? They're explicitly secret in their business model, though they have patented it. Patents are devices to protect publicly available knowledge, so they're already abusing the system. If the patent system weren't already synonymous with abuse, I'd say they're not just charging for downloads, because of course there's already prior art for that bizmodel. What is it?
  • --c'est tu--
  • My concern about these sorts of things is that Indi artists get lost.

    With the major labels on-board, this company could easily forget that any other type of music exists.

    Will they have a means for indipendant labels to register and use their sales/distribution scheme as well? I hope so! I know it adds hassles of verifying IP/ownership rights, but I think it would then appeal to a wider audience (although, I'll admit, a probably insignificant amount of the sales).

    I'm on-board with the first solution whi
    • Re:Indi artists? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by jfengel ( 409917 ) on Wednesday November 24, 2004 @11:47AM (#10909804) Homepage Journal
      The indie labels are exactly where they always were: indepdendent. They've had the right for years to make their music available in any form they want. Put it on the existing P2P networks, make it available to download through iTMS or another service, put it on their web site.

      The big record labels have always had the marketing advantage. That's what makes them the big record labels. The indies' upside is that they can make any sort of music they want; the downside is that because they're not aggressively targeting the mainstream, nobody's ever heard of them.

      I don't think this changes anything. If the indies want to be noticed they need to develop their own ways. They should be more flexible than the Big Four, not just piggyback on their successes.
    • What, is grade school out for Thanksgiving already?

      This story is about 3 of the 4 MAJOR record label companies setting up a system to sell their stuff. How in the world would Indy labels be involved in this? Does MGM sell and advertise GlowPop records at Best Buy? no.

  • by WhiteWolf666 ( 145211 ) <sherwin@a m i r a n . us> on Wednesday November 24, 2004 @11:40AM (#10909759) Homepage Journal
    This is a service, that in almost everyway, is simply another pay-for-download music model.

    You login, you license a song, you download it (with DRM).

    Here's the difference, I'm guessing:

    It's P2P. You download it from someone else on the network. That person gets some sort of recompensation based upon outgoing bandwidth used for legally purchased downloads.

    Thus, if you have 100s of gigs online (legally purchased), and you serve it out on a fat pipe, and its stuff thats indemand, you may find a portion of your 'costs' paid for by the service.

    Might work. Depend on whether or not the bandwidth savings for Wurld Media result in cheaper prices per song.

    I doubt it, personal. Don't think they'll go under iTunes, and it'll still be difficult to compete with free.

    It's a neat idea, but its just TOO late. You have mature free filesharing networks, and it just isn't going to work to introduce not-free (as in beer) networks.

    It's telling consumers: Here, I have a product, its just like the one you already have, but you have to pay for mine.

    Right.

    At least with iTunes&look-a-likes, you get instant access to the music you want. Pay-for-P2P is slow, requires searching for music you may want, and requires money? Worst of all worlds.

    I guess it is legal, and for the small portion of the public of which the legality of music sharing is a big deal, this may matter. But that demographic is a small part of slashdot, and I'm betting that its an even smaller part of the world at large.
    • At least with iTunes&look-a-likes, you get instant access to the music you want. Pay-for-P2P is slow, requires searching for music you may want, and requires money? Worst of all worlds.

      Does iTunes work in some way that doesnt require searching? It telepathetically knows what song i want and gives it to me? Of course there is going to be searching I'd hate to use a service that didn't incoporate that simple style of interface. Now with that said and done why couldn't this service simply allow you to

  • by jb_nizet ( 98713 ) on Wednesday November 24, 2004 @11:41AM (#10909768)
    Seriously, if all the "shared" files aren't free, why should I help them by offering my bandwidth to their other customers?
    It's a bit like if I went to a shop, bought a disc, and the shop gave me 100 other copies to distribute by myself to other customers.
    • Exactly. Why not just open a regular music store like iTMS, or just make stuff available on iTMS itself (or one of its competitors)?

      Maybe they think that the thrill in P2P is the feeling like you're participating in the process, as opposed to the obvious upside of getting your music for free, and that everything ever made is available.

      If they wanted to play hardball they'd stop selling CDs entirely and switch only to DRM'ed formats.
  • Incredible! (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Now I can pay money to receive music at a quality that's inferior to CD at a store that has a selection inferior to any city's music store *AND* as an added bonus incur bandwidth sharing costs as well as opening my computer up to exploitation with yet another app with sockets a-listening.

    Where do I sign up???

  • From their FAQ [peerimpact.com]:
    Peer Impact is a proprietary, patent-pending business model
  • by finkployd ( 12902 ) on Wednesday November 24, 2004 @12:04PM (#10909916) Homepage
    I'm making the assumption that this uses DRM and is actually p2p. So how on earth could that possibly work?

    Just a quick primer, DRM (at least in any existing form) is nothing more than public key encryption turned upside down. A private key is generated on your machine and the public key is sent to the server (in the case of itunes or napster v2). The public key is used to encrypt any files you "purchase" so that only the private key can decrypt it. So far so good, but that is just simply public key encryption. What makes it DRM is that the software attempts to "hide" your own private key from you, the rational being that if you can access your own key, you can decrypt the data at will and save it rather than letting the application place all kinds of restrictions on you.

    If this seems like an incredibly ignorant and technologically weak idea it is only because that is exactly what DRM is.

    So how do you pull something like that off in a P2P environment? Who handles keys? Who encrypts stuff and to whom? I can only see this working with a flat fee based system where everyone has access to everything which has been encrypted with the same key. Of course as soon as that one key is "found" (and it will be, it has to be in every player on the network), the whole system falls apart.

    Details on this would be nice (and not too much to ask from a news for nerds site), right now there just seems to be empty marketing blurbs.

    Finkployd
  • What a SCAM! (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Newer Guy ( 520108 )
    Pay per cut to use your own bandwith to download a DRMed song. The artist provides the song. The user (and everyone else) provides the bandwidth. The record companies provide NOTHING, yet get the lion's share of the $$!

    What a SCAM!

    The only way that ANY legit p2p service/program can ever work is by charging a flat rate for 'all you can download'. Or at least have a two tiered system where the Billboard top 100 sells a la carte, but once a song falls off the top 100, it moves into the flat rate category.

    • "Pay per cut to use your own bandwith to download a DRMed song. The artist provides the song. The user (and everyone else) provides the bandwidth. The record companies provide NOTHING, yet get the lion's share of the $$!"

      Many Slashdotters tend to equate a piece of paper with some lyrics on it, or a musical talent, with a finished recording. To be clear, your claim that the record company provides "NOTHING" isn't a reflection of your intelligence, but of a lack of understanding of what record companies

      • WRONG!! (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Newer Guy ( 520108 )
        The record company LOANS the artist $$$! Each artist has to pay back the label for all that marketing, engineering, etc.

        Most bands starting out make NOTHING from their first few albums; the label gets it all!

        Here's somethiung for you to read. Steve Albini has been in the business a LONG time, and is very well known and respected. I know him personally and he has something that very few others in the record business have: INTEGRITY!

        Want to know the truth? read this:

        http://www.negativland.com/albini.html
        • " The record company LOANS the artist $$$! Each artist has to pay back the label for all that marketing, engineering, etc."

          Sort of. If the record costs $500K to produce and only recoups $300K, the band doesn't owe the record company $200K. The record company takes all the risk here.

          "Most bands starting out make NOTHING from their first few albums; the label gets it all!"

          You're correct here. It's a raw deal for the band because of the supply-and-demand nature of the business -- there are lots mo

  • What is the real advantage to a consumer of a system like this, as opposed to a traditional download system such as iTunes? I doubt the downloads will be significantly faster, and I suppose that the catalog won't be anything spectacular. You can get your WMA fix from Napster or Real with minimal upstream bandwidth.
  • The whole point to getting music over P2P back in the days of (the original) Napster, was that it was free and there were no other legal ways to purchase individual tracks at the time. With services like iTunes, the current Napster, Wal-Mart, RealAudio, and even the legally questionable AllOfMP3, why would you want the hassle of P2P's unreliability?

    I've never had to wait for a track I purchased from iTunes to start downloading. Everything is exactly as it should be, no improperly named or corrupt files.
    • "The whole point to getting music over P2P back in the days of (the original) Napster, was that it was free and there were no other legal ways to purchase individual tracks at the time. With services like iTunes, the current Napster, Wal-Mart, RealAudio, and even the legally questionable AllOfMP3, why would you want the hassle of P2P's unreliability?"

      I think you're making the assumption that all the content on PeerImpact would be for sale. I've seen nothing to convince me that there wouldn't be a large

  • ...a peer-to-peer service that enables legal music file-sharing.

    Hello!! Earth to submitter! They ALL enable legal music file-sharing. Every freaking P2P system ever used enabled legal music file-sharing. This statement is designed to re-inforce the notion that ALL THE OTHER P2P APPS ARE 100% ILLEGAL. Period.

    What this scheme attempts to do is block the illegal part that the others pay no mind to.

    And yes I know the usage stats. I know most P2P is violating copyrights. But it's just ignorance

  • First, as I believe has been mentioned before, Wurld Media is a huge adware vendor. While this alone would prevent me from consider using PeerImpact (I don't want to see adware vendors making any more money), it's a vital clue to their revenue model. This may allow them to offer lower prices on the same content that's available on other authorized download sites, perhaps using a BMI/ASCAP type system where a portion of the ad revenues are distributed to the content creators in proportion to their popular

  • They want to use our bandwidth, slap DRM on it and expect us to pay $1/song ? I can see it now!

    "ALL THE HASSLE^H^H^H^H^H FEATURES OF P2P CAN NOW BE YOURS FOR ONLY $.99 A SONG!"*

    *DRM may apply.

  • As I read this the Apple iPod story has garnered more than 500 responses - and about 150 comments on this thread. I read this as: "Who cares?"

    I would think that the big four labels signing onto a p2p network of any sort would be huge news, but I guess even in the techie world we just dont care. Between bittorrent, soulseek, kazaa, winMX, aquisition and so forth (oh and Rhapsody / iTunes music store) it seems that the labels are trying to fill a market need that has already been met.

    Will they make money? U
    • I would think that the big four labels signing onto a p2p network of any sort would be huge news, but I guess even in the techie world we just dont care.

      Personally, I don't care. I'm fed up with the same old crap-for-music that the majors have been spewing out for years.

      Thanks to the internet and services like Shoutcast and Live365, it's pretty easy for someone like me to check out bands that don't have million dollar marketeting budgets. IMHO, this is what is hurting the major labels. I can only th

  • by DroopyStonx ( 683090 ) on Wednesday November 24, 2004 @02:49PM (#10911658)
    I prefer Gnutella.

    Remember, it's the uploaders they go after... not the downloaders.

    You'll be fine.

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary saftey deserve neither liberty not saftey." -- Benjamin Franklin, 1759

Working...