Why MusicNet is Better Than Napster

[theknife]

At least, that is what this guy says

personally, I don't see it that way, but maybe it's just me

[JackSpratts]

Originally posted by theknife


personally, I don't see it that way, but maybe it's just me

no, not just you knife. there’s so much misinformation and self-serving comments directed at marginalizing filesharers that i don't have time to list them all, besides, it’s too hot! i’ll say this much: the only way these guys will ever successfully supplant today’s peer-to-peer is by legislation, not business models. they can't do it any other way. the day it becomes definitively illegal for me to lend you a recording is the first day these paid services will take off, and not a second before. and maybe not even then.

- js.

[pod]

Now, that's a little harsh, JS.

1. It is perfectly legal for you to LEND a friend your CD. A little gray when it comes to giving your friend a COPY. Definitely illegal when you push fair use to the limit and give a copy to hundreds or thousands of 'friends'.

2. You can take a month or two, with help of some good tools, and you can have your entire CD collection in mp3 format, legally. For 'the music industry' to take their entire catalogue and make it commercially available (in a fast, sleek, cheap, functional and supported fashion), legally, will take just a tad longer. I don't like any of the current commercial digital music outfits' offerings, prices, sites, or terms, but they do have to start somewhere. In the meantime the PR people have to sling around some FUD to distract everyone from the real issue: the music industry has absolutely nothing compelling to offer on the Internet as things are today. It's what they get paid to do.

3. As an aside, there was a story today about the computer industry telling the __AAs to take their digital paranoia and shove it where the sun don't shine. Strangely enough, Microsoft was one of the companies, which is most ironic considering their own DRM initiative. Perhaps enough opposition to entertainment industry's proposals will give MS time and opportunity to come in and say: remember how you wanted all kinds of DRM controls a while back? Well, here you go. And suddenly MS has another monopoly.

[alphabeater]

from the article:
Some of your partners--AOL Time Warner among them--have recently started selling individual downloads of songs.
They're experimenting with that, as are others. And this has become a much more active conversation now about how to sell single tracks or entire albums online.

But I mean they're selling MP3s. They're selling files that aren't tethered at all for 99 cents a download.
Right, that's a permanent download.

So, it seems like some labels are at least warming up to the idea of doing it a la carte.
They're moving towards that.

this is the only bit that even slightly interested me. for a perfect (ie. 320 kbit, cd-quality) copy of one track, i might pay that 99 cents. as for awful subscription services pretending to be p2p, no thanks.

added to that, realone music (musicnet) is still only available in the u.s. - this is same as just about every other recording industry endorsed music subscription service on the net. try signing up to rhapsody or pressplay and see how far you get if you're anywhere in the world except america.

'legal' alternatives? screw 'em.

[JackSpratts]

hi pod, let me say that i can only lend my music, either from home or online, one file per person at a time, just like my local library does, and the us supreme court says i can. they said i can record a program using my vcr and dispose of it as i see fit – even if that means selling it. i’m not about to do that but until I hear otherwise it’s my position that their ruling applies to me lending my cds and my recordings of cds and broadcasts, to friends, and acquaintances, real or virtual.

the recording industry has had years to offer music online. in '96 they were so worried about the net they wanted to shut it down - but not worried enough to offer songs to subscribers. the explosion of file sharing has answered pent-up demand unmet by the labels for half a decade - and unmet to this day.

also i'm aware of the conflicts between the hardware guys and the software guys. i linked a story 3 days ago but it's not exactly about helping the people secure copyright access. for instance congress is now considering systems that prevent the copying of webcasts, after congress already instituted fees on webcasts to cover alleged losses suffered by the labels because of the copying of webcasts (fees which btw forced most webcasters off the net). so we'll pay $ to receive copyable webcasts but copying them will require disabling the new digital rights management flags, and that's a felony. who’s kidding who? the labels are using fear and technological obscuration to try to accomplish what they’ve never been able to do before. they want to control it all. i'm just working to see that doesn't happen.

these new communication tools are so important they can't be left to a handfull of for profit conglomerates like microsoft, aol time warner, vivendi and others to carve up. we don't need their distribution systems anymore, if we ever did. we can without question do it better ourselves, and we have been. the only way they can stop us is by an act of congress, with back-up from the supreme court.

and maybe even an army...

- js.

[spstn]

Is it me, or something is amiss with all of these services trying to take off the ground?

Which are the factors, and how do you account for them, to establish the cost of one track or the whole CD, when it is downloaded in mp3 format?.

Is it the conventional value of a copyrighted work alone, or do you take into consideration the quality of the format?.

The track of an average CD cost $ 1.30 - 1.50 each, the format is lossless, and you get a physical Cd, a booklet and a jewel box.

On the other hand the mp3 format is lossy (even at 320), and the only thing you're getting is a file.

And when I look at the whole picture 99 cents a track in mp3 format looks more like twice of what I should be paying (in case you put a gun to my head forcing me) for it.

And in my opinion this is just only part of the problem, because what's really a disgrace is the format itself; mp3 format shouldn't be used to sell anything.

I have no problem with it being used for personally managing your music collection (I do it), but never, EVER to sell music to the general public.

In my humble opinion this (among other trends) will help to acomplish, in the long run, what Sony couldn't do with the Mini Disc, despite forgetting to inform the user of the lossy nature of the format: the killing of lossless delivery of music.

There's already a generation that doesn't know what Hi Fi means (They listen to pictures, and the medium is the message), and the Lo Fi trend is gonna get worse, not better.

I know this is a lost cause, but at least saying it out loud take the insult out of the injury.