Hound Dog Posted September 26, 2006 Share Posted September 26, 2006 The link an interesting little twist to the saga... Yum, Yum! Eat em up! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guitarzan Posted September 26, 2006 Share Posted September 26, 2006 interesting indeed. http://www.soundclick.com/bands/pagemusic.cfm?bandID=193274 rock it, i will Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric VB Posted September 26, 2006 Share Posted September 26, 2006 I don't know. It's not like the record companies have bought up all the corn farms or gold mines or even musicians. There are plenty of musicians to go around. Maybe LimeWire should try to get music from the source: musicians? Sure, in the past any retailer could buy CDs and sell them in their store. The internet equivalent is the digital download site. For each $0.99 song a consumer buys, a (large) fraction goes back to the record company. Life goes on. How is it supposed to work with a P2P like LimeWire? P2P buys a license and their members can download that song as many times as they like? How is the record company supposed to know what fixed fee they should charge? Would the P2P be willing to pay a per-download license fee, or can they even do that kind of accounting? (I have no idea how this works.) The blessing/curse is that recorded music in this form doesn't wear out. It doesn't degrade from copy to copy; each is as good as the original. You don't run out. It's not like you buy a stack of 1000 posters and when you run out you can't sell anymore, or you buy one poster and sell identical color copies (on a copier you don't have to pay for). From the P2P point of view, a fixed license fee is the ideal. From the record company's view, a per-download fee is best. (Again, I don't know what the standard is.) Let's say that P2P is the better delivery model. Since we don't like monopolies, let's say there are two such P2Ps. All music consumers are a member of one or both of these. The record company only gets to sell two licenses now (or maybe only one), instead of collecting per consumer sale. How much should those license fees be? In the end, will such a scheme bring the cost to consumers down, say to $0.25 a song? I'm sure consumers will go on paying a price they're "willing" to pay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunbreak Music Posted September 26, 2006 Share Posted September 26, 2006 Originally posted by RicBassGuy: The blessing/curse is that recorded music in this form doesn't wear out. It doesn't degrade from copy to copy; each is as good as the original. You don't run out. It's not like you buy a stack of 1000 posters and when you run out you can't sell anymore, or you buy one poster and sell identical color copies (on a copier you don't have to pay for). From the P2P point of view, a fixed license fee is the ideal. From the record company's view, a per-download fee is best. (Again, I don't know what the standard is.) Well......from CD to MP3 is a pretty big initial degradation (but I realize that most don't care), and some of those algorithms for compression are pretty bad. I would go w/ per song, as an artist. Cass Anawaty, Chief Engineer Sunbreak Music, LLC High Resolution Stereo and Surround Mastering www.sunbreakmusic.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Red 67 Posted September 26, 2006 Share Posted September 26, 2006 Well the few downloads that I have have been listen to just a few times. Most of the stuff I download is stuff i own. Even then I tend not to go to it. I own 800+ CDs, 200+ on vinyl. I have 200+ on tape. Do you really think I am worried about it? I think it is cool that some one is taking a stand. Big Red's Ride Blog Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hound Dog Posted September 27, 2006 Author Share Posted September 27, 2006 It would also be interesting if these type of lawsuits got hung up in the courts (like so many do) and were not even settled by the time the industry moves on to other distribution methods and media, making the outcome meaningless for either party going forward. Lime Wire is asking for a jury trial. Can you imagine the challenge of just trying to get a jury to understand how the recording industry works? Yum, Yum! Eat em up! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
musicalhair Posted September 27, 2006 Share Posted September 27, 2006 I don't see how Limeware has "standing" to bring this to court. I suspect it will be thrown out. I'm not saying Limeware is wrong, but I don't see them as the injured party in any of the stuff they allege. It seems to be that Limeware's beef with the record companies is that they've had "peer to peer" shut down because of the misuse of it which is outside Limeware and Kazaa and Napster's control. I've never liked the logic in shutting them down like that, it is like taking the lawsuits against gun manufactures for deaths and injuries but instead trying to fine them sue them for monetary rewards, getting them shut down. It seems unreasonable to punish someone for creating something that might be misused by someone else. Not that I wanted to raise a gun issue, but there is a similarity between holding Kazaa liable for misuse by people that use it, and the recent attempts to take gun companies to court for a similar reason. check out some comedy I've done: http://louhasspoken.tumblr.com/ My Unitarian Jihad Name: Brother Broadsword of Enlightened Compassion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billster Posted September 27, 2006 Share Posted September 27, 2006 Originally posted by Hound Dog: It would also be interesting if these type of lawsuits got hung up in the courts (like so many do) and were not even settled by the time the industry moves on to other distribution methods and media, making the outcome meaningless for either party going forward. Lime Wire is asking for a jury trial. Can you imagine the challenge of just trying to get a jury to understand how the recording industry works? Considering no one knows how the recording industry works, that would be impossible I don't see where there's a leg to stand on for LimeWire, but I think it's mostly a publicity stunt. As you say, by the time this thing passes through the colon of the legal system, technology will have moved on. Buy my CD on CD Baby! Bill Hartzell - the website MySpace?!?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ricardo. Posted September 27, 2006 Share Posted September 27, 2006 Peer-to-Peer Developer Sues Record CompaniesHey! No discussing religion here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
revolead Posted September 27, 2006 Share Posted September 27, 2006 Originally posted by musicalhair: It seems to be that Limeware's beef with the record companies is that they've had "peer to peer" shut down because of the misuse of it which is outside Limeware and Kazaa and Napster's control. I've never liked the logic in shutting them down like that, it is like taking the lawsuits against gun manufactures for deaths and injuries but instead trying to fine them sue them for monetary rewards, getting them shut down. It seems unreasonable to punish someone for creating something that might be misused by someone else. Not that I wanted to raise a gun issue, but there is a similarity between holding Kazaa liable for misuse by people that use it, and the recent attempts to take gun companies to court for a similar reason. I agree with musicalhair on this one. You could lump a lot of industries in that too, including tobacco, but again, in lieu of politics, point is: all these lawsuits are ridiculous. It's not about monopolies or illegal file sharing. It's about one company using the law to get more money than another or more money that it feels it has lost. Copyrights are an important part of the American economy and so are peer-to-peer networks. It's high time the two come together in an agreement. Shut up and play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A String Posted September 27, 2006 Share Posted September 27, 2006 I think the way it was sorted out up here worked out ok. We are allowed to download MP3s through P2P. In return, we have to pay and extra charge on our MP3 players (About $13) and also on other "Player Related Products". Every once and a while, folks update their MP3 players, headphones, memory sticks etc. That money is given to the record companies to off set the costs. Plus, even though I can download MP3s for free, if I enjoy a band's MP3 that I've downloaded, I will still go out and buy the CD. A Lot of folks are the same way. Craig Stringnetwork on Facebook String Network Forum My Music Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Griffinator Posted September 27, 2006 Share Posted September 27, 2006 Originally posted by musicalhair: It seems to be that Limeware's beef with the record companies is that they've had "peer to peer" shut down because of the misuse of it which is outside Limeware and Kazaa and Napster's control. Actually, if you read a little closer, what LimeWire is alleging is that the record companies are imposing a forced monopoly on filtering systems and other licensing-related software, by preventing LimeWire from accessing their meta signature data on songs, thus defeating Lime's ability to prevent illegal sharing on its site to begin with. They claim that the record companies are colluding in an effort to prevent any form of legal distribution other than those that have paid them tall licensing fees, taller than most small internet companies can afford to pay. It's really an intriguing legal argument, and I'll be watching carefully to see how it shakes out. There are plenty of musicians to go around. Maybe LimeWire should try to get music from the source: musicians?Key being that the musicians don't control their own copyrights, at least not what LimeWire refers to as "commerically viable" musicians. They have to buckle to the record company's whims on this issue, unless they were smart enough to keep the digital distribution rights in their contracts, which is nearly impossible for anyone but a musical giant. Not only that, but Lime has no real control over their own content - it's a peer-to-peer system, remember? They can use filters to block out illegal content, but they can't "put in" content that was never there to begin with. And we all saw how well mp3.com worked when they were distroing independent musicians... A bunch of loud, obnoxious music I USED to make with friends. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hound Dog Posted September 27, 2006 Author Share Posted September 27, 2006 Originally posted by Griffinator: Actually, if you read a little closer, what LimeWire is alleging is that the record companies are imposing a forced monopoly on filtering systems and other licensing-related software, by preventing LimeWire from accessing their meta signature data on songs, thus defeating Lime's ability to prevent illegal sharing on its site to begin with. They claim that the record companies are colluding in an effort to prevent any form of legal distribution other than those that have paid them tall licensing fees, taller than most small internet companies can afford to pay. It's really an intriguing legal argument, and I'll be watching carefully to see how it shakes out. I think you've correctly interpreted the main "beef". It might be similar to the way that the NFL was found to be a monopoly. If in the end the monopoly is the verdict, how ironic that it was all brought on by the original lawsuits of the Recording industry initiated. Fascinating. Yum, Yum! Eat em up! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
revolead Posted September 27, 2006 Share Posted September 27, 2006 Originally posted by A String: Plus, even though I can download MP3s for free, if I enjoy a band's MP3 that I've downloaded, I will still go out and buy the CD. A Lot of folks are the same way. I did that this week. AString, your country may have an interesting idea, though I'm not sure it tackles the root of the problem, which is copyright violations. Does the system up in Canada have musicians annoyed or do they feel it protects international copyright law? Shut up and play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A String Posted September 27, 2006 Share Posted September 27, 2006 Originally posted by revolead: Originally posted by A String: Plus, even though I can download MP3s for free, if I enjoy a band's MP3 that I've downloaded, I will still go out and buy the CD. A Lot of folks are the same way. I did that this week. AString, your country may have an interesting idea, though I'm not sure it tackles the root of the problem, which is copyright violations. Does the system up in Canada have musicians annoyed or do they feel it protects international copyright law? There is a lot of heated debates, on either side of the fence. I'm a little bit sceptical as to how it will pan out in the end, but for now, I like the fact that it only cost me $13, every few years, for unlimited MP3 downloads. Don't forget, when you buy a CD, it had to be pressed and the artwork had to be printed etc. With an MP3, when it's finished and released, there is no further overhead costs. It will be interesting to see how it gets handled over the next few years. Craig Stringnetwork on Facebook String Network Forum My Music Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
musicalhair Posted September 28, 2006 Share Posted September 28, 2006 Hey Griff, I didn't understand it the way you spelled it out. That aspect of it makes sense to me. check out some comedy I've done: http://louhasspoken.tumblr.com/ My Unitarian Jihad Name: Brother Broadsword of Enlightened Compassion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric VB Posted September 28, 2006 Share Posted September 28, 2006 Originally posted by Griffinator: There are plenty of musicians to go around. Maybe LimeWire should try to get music from the source: musicians?Key being that the musicians don't control their own copyrights, at least not what LimeWire refers to as "commerically viable" musicians. [...] And we all saw how well mp3.com worked when they were distroing independent musicians... Why are the record companies the only ones that can find "commercially viable" musicians? (Well, because they've been the only game in town for so long, to be sure.) Couldn't you make a talented indie from mp3.com "commercially viable" by dumping the kind of promo dollars on them that the record companies pour on their artists? (And there of course is the answer: "commercially viable" artists aren't found, they're made.) Let's say LimeWire wins the lawsuit and then let's get ridiculous and say that puts all the record companies out of business. Who's going to jump in with the deep pockets to promo new artists so they can become "commercially viable"? I'd like to know, 'cause I'd sure like to meet them so I can bypass the gatekeepers myself. Not only that, but Lime has no real control over their own content - it's a peer-to-peer system, remember? They can use filters to block out illegal content, but they can't "put in" content that was never there to begin with. I just assumed LW added content to draw subscribers. If I'm a subscriber to LW, what's my incentive for adding content? (I guess I could wander over to their site and see how they operate.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Griffinator Posted September 28, 2006 Share Posted September 28, 2006 Originally posted by RicBassGuy: Couldn't you make a talented indie from mp3.com "commercially viable" by dumping the kind of promo dollars on them that the record companies pour on their artists? (And there of course is the answer: "commercially viable" artists aren't found, they're made.) Well, I was involved with MP3c for a very long time, and the best on their site still didn't get national attention. So unless Lime was willing to get involved, literally, in the music business itself by putting together an indie label and hunting down talent from all these sites (myspace, artistlaunch, garageband, et al) and signing them up, I don't see how they could pull it off and still be commercially viable on their own. A bunch of loud, obnoxious music I USED to make with friends. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trucks Posted September 28, 2006 Share Posted September 28, 2006 Limewire dont have a "site" as such Ric... They work by people sharing content... IF people dont share there is nothig to download.. Its all about you have to input into the community or there is no community. They offer a peer to peer file sharing network... As in Mr X puts a file up to share... People download the file in 'chunks' so say.. a 100mb file for instance could be split into 100x1mb chunks... When a user has downloaded chunk 1 of 100 they automatically start UPLOADING chunk 1 to a certain number of users as they are downloading chunk 2... and so on and so forth. Its not about downloading from limewire its about using limewire to download from all the other users of limewire who have the same file. Soundclick Myspace Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trucks Posted September 28, 2006 Share Posted September 28, 2006 And also you dont subscribe to limewire... Its free to use as long as you have their software. Soundclick Myspace Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric VB Posted September 28, 2006 Share Posted September 28, 2006 Ok, scratch everything I said previously. I totally misunderstood this article. After visiting both limewire.com and imesh.com I see that both of these are competing P2P technologies. This was not made clear in the linked article. (Shame on PC World!) On the iMesh homepage, they waste no time boasting they have "Over 2 million original high quality songs licensed from the record labels." (Hmm ... how does that work? iMesh buys the license on a song, allows their filter to pass it, and hopes someone on their system has a copy to share? They wouldn't put a server on a P2P, would they? Then it's no longer P2P!) Both P2Ps are giving away their software for free, although at least LW sells an upgraded version. So ... they're making an investment at this point, hoping to recover it in the future when they have enough (all?) market share and announce (a) you must subscribe to their service, and (b) it'll cost you plenty? Won't P2P lose its luster when it becomes a pay-for-use service, like cable TV? (Or am I the only cheap bastard that still watches broadcast TV? ) I'm just trying to understand the business model here. Anyway, yeah, LW is being shut out if iMesh was able to get the metadata and LW was not. And what pricetag do you think iMesh will put on the filter software its competitor needs and can only get from them? Muhahahaha! On the other end of things, LW is being held liable for copyright infringement that it can't control without the filter or metadata. What about ISPs and the phone company (for dial-up)? Aren't their systems also being used for "illegal use" when connected to a P2P like LW? (But of course, the record companies have no need to go after these guys.) Well, it sounds like it's time to invest in a system to run iMesh. Get started now and automate the download of 2 million songs for free ... while they're still free! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trucks Posted September 29, 2006 Share Posted September 29, 2006 iMesh is loaded with spyware... So I would be inclined to install it on a seperate Windows Install, download the music, then delete the windows install Soundclick Myspace Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.