Slyck.com
 
Slyck Chatbox - And More

Sony Frees Entire Music Catalog on PlayLouder ISP

Discuss Slyck's latest news
Forum rules
PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING: Slyck Forum Rules

Postby BasicTek » Thu Sep 01, 2005 8:01 pm

It blows my mind that people actually want their ISP's to log all their traffic (allowing the AA's and others to sue the shit out of users that do anything considered illegal)

And to charge the massive $$$ so they can download some of what they want to.

Drake keep it up. I'm tired of argueing too but the message still needs to be conveyed. ISP monitoring is BADDD!!!!!

The AA's and others will not be satisified with the mere $14 that Playlouder is offering for Sony ONLY!!!

By the time all the labels and the MPAA get to this point our ISP's will cost $100 or more. Shit if cable is over $100 why not ISP's.

And the sad part is they don't have to do anything to get your money cause P2P is already happening. They just need to change the laws to make ISP's pay them $$$. While also included in the bill is ISP packet tracking of every single user.

How anyone can welcome this is absolutely INSANE!!! Unless you work for the AA's. Then it's job security.
"The government, which was designed for the people, has got into the hands of the bosses and their employers, the special interests. An invisible empire has been set up above the forms of democracy." - Woodrow Wilson
User avatar
BasicTek
 
Posts: 1610
Joined: Sat Jun 04, 2005 12:59 pm
Location: Somewhere warm

Postby Not Sure, But... » Fri Sep 02, 2005 1:35 am

So you didn't read the previous posts? They specificly said they would not monitor /track users stuff. Just what is on the overall network, not which ip it is coming from.

I really don't beleive they are tacking on 5, 10 or 15 dollars per label that signs, they are just giving a portion of that to each based on their musics popularity.

Remember, the isp's still gotta keep us happy to get our business.
Not Sure, But...
 
Posts: 84
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2005 9:56 am

labeless artists allowed in at the same level?

Postby gowger » Fri Sep 02, 2005 7:20 am

Apologies if this has been mentioned before but I didn't have time to go through the full discussion.

Does anyone have any idea how playlouder would deal with an independant artist who is not signed with a major label?

My main problem with the traditional big music business is that they provide an unfair playing field for artists and only those signed with big labels get the air play. So will this set up kill off non-signed artists or will it give them a better promotional position than traditional distribution media?

Even if there is nothing stopping the promotion of label free media it's still going to be down to the individual artist to make sure they are on everyone's (all msps, lets say the idea took off) list, a task which a big company has much more resources to do than an individual meaning that the playing field is still not really level. Therefore I would think to counter this we would need a free single entry point place to upload tracks that would then be shared across ALL msps.

So if this model catches on then standards and compliance with them will be very important, like everything else web.

I like last.fm's approach to independent artist promotion.

So I'm still not at home with this 'walled garden' approach, I see it as ripe for allowing totalitarian control over digital media. Like a lot of sociological inventions it'd work brilliantly in an idealist utopia. :)

Any thoughts on this?
gowger
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2005 6:55 am

Re: labeless artists allowed in at the same level?

Postby AussieMatt » Fri Sep 02, 2005 7:55 am

gowger wrote:Apologies if this has been mentioned before but I didn't have time to go through the full discussion.

Does anyone have any idea how playlouder would deal with an independant artist who is not signed with a major label?

My main problem with the traditional big music business is that they provide an unfair playing field for artists and only those signed with big labels get the air play. So will this set up kill off non-signed artists or will it give them a better promotional position than traditional distribution media?

Even if there is nothing stopping the promotion of label free media it's still going to be down to the individual artist to make sure they are on everyone's (all msps, lets say the idea took off) list, a task which a big company has much more resources to do than an individual meaning that the playing field is still not really level. Therefore I would think to counter this we would need a free single entry point place to upload tracks that would then be shared across ALL msps.

So if this model catches on then standards and compliance with them will be very important, like everything else web.

I like last.fm's approach to independent artist promotion.

So I'm still not at home with this 'walled garden' approach, I see it as ripe for allowing totalitarian control over digital media. Like a lot of sociological inventions it'd work brilliantly in an idealist utopia. :)

Any thoughts on this?


Maybe you need to read the Discussion the information is there ...............
AussieMatt
 
Posts: 1044
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2004 10:03 am

Postby BasicTek » Fri Sep 02, 2005 8:57 am

Here we go again. Didn't we have this discussion already???

Not Sure, But... wrote:So you didn't read the previous posts? They specificly said they would not monitor /track users stuff. Just what is on the overall network, not which ip it is coming from.


The thing is if they are looking at what is on the overall network the IP info will be right there for the taking. Hard to believe that it won't be used. That's just being naive and being sucked into Playlouder's PR campaign

Not Sure, But... wrote:I really don't beleive they are tacking on 5, 10 or 15 dollars per label that signs, they are just giving a portion of that to each based on their musics popularity.


Playlouder is $14 more than other ISP's and has only cut a deal with Sony hence there is no $$$ in the model for other labels unless Sony is only getting a tiny fraction of that $14 which I tend to doubt based on other pay services.

Not Sure, But... wrote:Remember, the isp's still gotta keep us happy to get our business.


Really like cable companies have to keep people happy? 100's of millions of customers overpay for cable and only use a small % of what they are paying for. So if this catches on it wouldn't be surprising to see ISP prices double or more if the MPAA jumps on board just as long as they can force the entire industry to this model.

I can see it now, AA lobbiest pleading their case to change laws because all ISP's have copyrighted material transferred over them regularly. A future where all ISP's have to log all network traffic and pay dues to the AA's and who foots the bill??? We the customer of course.

This is not the direction I want to head to it makes my signature become more and more true.

I personally don't believe that sharing is "stealing" and I don't think the AA's deserve 1 cent for sharing that's currently occurring. Anything short of that is a defeat to P2P IMO.
"The government, which was designed for the people, has got into the hands of the bosses and their employers, the special interests. An invisible empire has been set up above the forms of democracy." - Woodrow Wilson
User avatar
BasicTek
 
Posts: 1610
Joined: Sat Jun 04, 2005 12:59 pm
Location: Somewhere warm

Questions Answered

Postby Commons Music » Sat Sep 03, 2005 9:01 am

Hello all.

I see the entry from my Commons Music Blog has been posted containing the interview with the PlayLouder MSP co-founder.

If you all have further questions you'd like me to ask the co-founder, go to the comments on the entry and I will send off the questions to Paul (providing they are reasonable, could really only be answered by asking him rather than looking elsewhere, etc.).

I look forward to reading your comments and questions.
Commons Music
 
Posts: 12
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2005 8:57 am

Postby eclectica » Sat Sep 03, 2005 7:17 pm

After reading the article at The Register and this paragraph: "As for blocking, Sanders wouldn't be drawn into details, and hinted that the firewall would be expected to do its work.", I suspect PlayLouder MSP will require installation of software on the home computer in order to provide any internet connection, and for the filtering to occur on the user's computer using a firewall, all part of the mandatory software package. That would be preferable for them than their having to centrally analyze all traffic and packets. If so the Audible Magic component working on the home computer may be something like RepliCheck. And I think people would have trouble using this service with a router or another computer on a LAN because of the requirement of the specially installed software in order to connect.

The fanboys of Playlouder MSP have been describing it as "legal filesharing", and describing the majority of filesharing that occurs outside of the walled garden / digital prison / gilded cage using normal ISPs such as Verizon as "illegal filesharing". Yet I don't think the law makes a distinction over which ISP one uses when factors of legality are concerned, or otherwise that would be providing a legal and biased endorsement of a commercial product. So I don't see how one is more "legal" or "illegal" than the other.

Drake wrote an article on Playlouder MSP here.
© copylefted
eclectica
 
Posts: 360
Joined: Fri May 30, 2003 10:50 pm
Location: p2p qaeda

Postby Commons Music » Sun Sep 04, 2005 7:09 am

eclectica wrote:The fanboys of Playlouder MSP have been describing it as "legal filesharing", and describing the majority of filesharing that occurs outside of the walled garden / digital prison / gilded cage using normal ISPs such as Verizon as "illegal filesharing". Yet I don't think the law makes a distinction over which ISP one uses when factors of legality are concerned, or otherwise that would be providing a legal and biased endorsement of a commercial product. So I don't see how one is more "legal" or "illegal" than the other.


You should really read up on it before saying something like that. This is legal because they have licensed the catalog of SonyBMG for specific use in this service. They have permission.
Commons Music
 
Posts: 12
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2005 8:57 am

Postby eclectica » Sun Sep 04, 2005 12:34 pm

All filesharing is legal, and the legality does not vary according to which ISP one uses.
© copylefted
eclectica
 
Posts: 360
Joined: Fri May 30, 2003 10:50 pm
Location: p2p qaeda

Postby Not Sure, But... » Sun Sep 04, 2005 1:09 pm

eclectica wrote:All filesharing programs are legal, and the legality does not vary according to which ISP one uses.


There, thought I would make your statement a little more accurate :wink:
Not Sure, But...
 
Posts: 84
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2005 9:56 am

Postby AussieMatt » Sun Sep 04, 2005 2:29 pm

Sure filesharing programs are not illeagal, but copyright infringement as it currenly stands is against the law unless a licence overides the copyright on content .

Maybe you guys should be aware of some of the specifics of the licence that Playlouder has

* The right to share any song in the Sony-BMG catalog
* Even if it's out of print
* In any file-format
* Using any file-sharing software
* At any bitrate

PlayLouder MSP's customers' license includes Sony music sourced from P2P networks, ripped from CDs, or digitized from vinyl, cassettes, or radio broadcasts.
AussieMatt
 
Posts: 1044
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2004 10:03 am

Postby eclectica » Sun Sep 04, 2005 4:49 pm

I don't see why filesharing using Playlouder MSP would be any more legal than the regular filesharing that occurs outside of their Walled Garden. The point I'm trying to make is that since the RIAA has labeled this service as "legal", then that is an implicit admission on their part that all other filesharing is legal as well.
© copylefted
eclectica
 
Posts: 360
Joined: Fri May 30, 2003 10:50 pm
Location: p2p qaeda

Postby Commons Music » Sun Sep 04, 2005 5:07 pm

eclectica wrote:I don't see why filesharing using Playlouder MSP would be any more legal than the regular filesharing that occurs outside of their Walled Garden. The point I'm trying to make is that since the RIAA has labeled this service as "legal", then that is an implicit admission on their part that all other filesharing is legal as well.


That...doesn't make sense. They are saying that using this ISP while using file-sharing programs is legal only for Sony BMG songs (and various indie catalogues), and only if you are trading with other PlayLouder subscribers.
Commons Music
 
Posts: 12
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2005 8:57 am

Postby eclectica » Sun Sep 04, 2005 5:09 pm

Doesn't the "legality" of something refer to the government's legal stance on it? If so how would it matter what ISP you use in swapping your files?
© copylefted
eclectica
 
Posts: 360
Joined: Fri May 30, 2003 10:50 pm
Location: p2p qaeda

Postby BasicTek » Sun Sep 04, 2005 5:13 pm

eclectica wrote:I don't see why filesharing using Playlouder MSP would be any more legal than the regular filesharing that occurs outside of their Walled Garden. The point I'm trying to make is that since the RIAA has labeled this service as "legal", then that is an implicit admission on their part that all other filesharing is legal as well.


When you share a file with whatever app on a regular ISP illegal copies of that file are being made therefore with our current pathetic copyright laws you are breaking the law and the AA's are hunting you down as we speak.

When you share a Sony file on Playlouder you are subscribing to an ISP that charges $14 more than other ISP's.

Playlouder will then log how many users download which Sony music files(while blocking them from leaving their prison network). Using this log they will determine who to send the royalties too.

Therefore a legal overpriced over monitered RIAA controlled ISP. And if you share non sony files the AA's will still hunt you down.
"The government, which was designed for the people, has got into the hands of the bosses and their employers, the special interests. An invisible empire has been set up above the forms of democracy." - Woodrow Wilson
User avatar
BasicTek
 
Posts: 1610
Joined: Sat Jun 04, 2005 12:59 pm
Location: Somewhere warm

Postby Drake » Sun Sep 04, 2005 5:14 pm

Commons Music wrote:That...doesn't make sense. They are saying that using this ISP while using file-sharing programs is legal only for Sony BMG songs (and various indie catalogues), and only if you are trading with other PlayLouder subscribers.


They are claiming that they will only block files if audible magic detects them. Since audible magic has struck deals with EMI and other major record labels, they will be blocked as well. If they are not blocked, then how can sharing copyrighted music files belonging to EMI be legal?

The thing is, PlayLouder doesn't go into detail. They prefer to make outrageous statements such as "no spoofs, no viruses, no lawyers". If the "no lawyers" part is true then they will certainly block every file audible magic detects, whether or not it belongs to Sony is irrelevant.

The no spoofs/viruses claim is interesting considering that the record labels pay companies to distribute fakes on several P2P networks. The very same P2P networks subscribers from Playlouder will be using to download music. Playlouder conveniently fails to provide information as to how their customers will be able to avoid viruses and spoofs.
User avatar
Drake
 
Posts: 2060
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2003 12:56 pm
Location: Meepos (where charging for MP3s is illegal!)

Postby Commons Music » Sun Sep 04, 2005 5:14 pm

eclectica wrote:Doesn't the "legality" of something refer to the government's legal stance on it?


That is true. Thus:

1. Swapping files on a network is illegal without permission from the copyright owners.

However:

2. Since PlayLouder has permission to let people within its network (and only within its network) swap files (but currently only from Sony BMG), then it is allowed.

Make sense?
Commons Music
 
Posts: 12
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2005 8:57 am

Postby Commons Music » Sun Sep 04, 2005 5:26 pm

They are claiming that they will only block files if audible magic detects them. Since audible magic has struck deals with EMI and other major record labels, they will be blocked as well. If they are not blocked, then how can sharing copyrighted music files belonging to EMI be legal?


Audible Magic has to be integrated individually into a system. Each song has to be digitized for PlayLouder, and they only digitize songs they have covered under their deals.

The thing is, PlayLouder doesn't go into detail. They prefer to make outrageous statements such as "no spoofs, no viruses, no lawyers". If the "no lawyers" part is true then they will certainly block every file audible magic detects, whether or not it belongs to Sony is irrelevant.

The no spoofs/viruses claim is interesting considering that the record labels pay companies to distribute fakes on several P2P networks. The very same P2P networks subscribers from Playlouder will be using to download music. Playlouder conveniently fails to provide information as to how their customers will be able to avoid viruses and spoofs.


No, they provide info. If you read the interview, you'll see that PlayLouder is also seeding downloads for PlayLouder subscribers to download SonyBMG (and indie) content that has been licensed to them. Although, one is free to download non-seeded content if one so chooses.
Commons Music
 
Posts: 12
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2005 8:57 am

Postby eclectica » Sun Sep 04, 2005 5:26 pm

Commons Music wrote:1. Swapping files on a network is illegal without permission from the copyright owners.

However:

2. Since PlayLouder has permission to let people within its network (and only within its network) swap files (but currently only from Sony BMG), then it is allowed.


Okay this means that filesharing in the Walled Garden is "legal" only so long as Sony BMG continues to grant permission for filesharers to share Sony BMG material, and such permission does not extend to non-Sony BMG material. It sounds to me to be a rather precarious situation. Sony could change its mind and suddenly withdraw such permission to share the files, making its users instant criminals from their perspective.

Maybe the filesharers will need a little more assurance than that before they go sticking their head in the lion's mouth.
© copylefted
eclectica
 
Posts: 360
Joined: Fri May 30, 2003 10:50 pm
Location: p2p qaeda

Postby Commons Music » Sun Sep 04, 2005 5:26 pm

BTW, a second part to the interview has been posted, for those of you interested.
Commons Music
 
Posts: 12
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2005 8:57 am

Postby Commons Music » Sun Sep 04, 2005 5:54 pm

eclectica wrote:Okay this means that filesharing in the Walled Garden is "legal" only so long as Sony BMG continues to grant permission for filesharers to share Sony BMG material, and such permission does not extend to non-Sony BMG material. It sounds to me to be a rather precarious situation. Sony could change its mind and suddenly withdraw such permission to share the files, making its users instant criminals from their perspective.

Maybe the filesharers will need a little more assurance than that before they go sticking their head in the lion's mouth.


I don't think that can happen. If they license their files, they have then licensed their files. "No backsies!" :wink:

Seriously, though, it is, currently, only Sony BMG and a smattering of indie labels. But, if this succeeds, then the other majors will certainly sign up for it.

Now, as for getting rid of the agreement, that would violate the license agreement in and of itself. Once you license it, it is usually for several years, if not in perpetuity.
Commons Music
 
Posts: 12
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2005 8:57 am

Postby Drake » Sun Sep 04, 2005 8:19 pm

Commons Music wrote:Audible Magic has to be integrated individually into a system. Each song has to be digitized for PlayLouder, and they only digitize songs they have covered under their deals.


If this is true, this means they won't block people from sharing copyrighted material from other big labels. This means that PlayLouder's customers still risk a lawsuit if they share copyrighted material. So much for their "no lawyers" claim.

Commons Music wrote:No, they provide info. If you read the interview, you'll see that PlayLouder is also seeding downloads for PlayLouder subscribers to download SonyBMG (and indie) content that has been licensed to them. Although, one is free to download non-seeded content if one so chooses.


I do know that they will be seeding files but this is irrelevant. They claim that their customers can use any P2P app, such as Limewire and Kazaa. The big record labels hire companies to flood networks like FastTrack and Gnutella with decoy files. This means their customers will probably continue to download some fake files. This means they have made yet another bullshit claim.

If they had clearly stated, "no fakes/virus if you download files we seed" that would be one thing. But they didn't write it that way.
User avatar
Drake
 
Posts: 2060
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2003 12:56 pm
Location: Meepos (where charging for MP3s is illegal!)

Postby Commons Music » Sun Sep 04, 2005 8:25 pm

Drake wrote:If this is true, this means they won't block people from sharing copyrighted material from other big labels. This means that PlayLouder's customers still risk a lawsuit if they share copyrighted material. So much for their "no lawyers" claim.


Well, they'd be risking a lawsuit anyway. Besides, they shouldn't, legally speaking, be downloading copyrighted material without permission anyway.

I do know that they will be seeding files but this is irrelevant. They claim that their customers can use any P2P app, such as Limewire and Kazaa. The big record labels hire companies to flood networks like FastTrack and Gnutella with decoy files. This means their customers will probably continue to download some fake files. This means they have made yet another bullshit claim.

If they had clearly stated, "no fakes/virus if you download files we seed" that would be one thing. But they didn't write it that way.


Doesn't exactly fit on a poster, does it? :wink:

I'll give them a little advertising leeway, the same way I give credit card companies leeway in their advertising. The fine print is always important, so this isn't high on a list of complaints in my book.
Commons Music
 
Posts: 12
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2005 8:57 am

Postby Drake » Sun Sep 04, 2005 8:27 pm

Commons Music wrote:Well, they'd be risking a lawsuit anyway. Besides, they shouldn't, legally speaking, be downloading copyrighted material without permission anyway.


PlayLouder should be upfront about this and clearly explain their customers are still at risk instead of giving them the impression there is no risk. You and I might realize the risks are still there but the average person won't, especially not when PlayLouder is misleading them.

Commons Music wrote:Doesn't exactly fit on a poster, does it?


"no fakes/virus if you download files we seed" = 9 words. It can easily fit. :)

Commons Music wrote:I'll give them a little advertising leeway, the same way I give credit card companies leeway in their advertising. The fine print is always important, so this isn't high on a list of complaints in my book.


I, on the other hand, will give them credit for being misleading and dishonest.
User avatar
Drake
 
Posts: 2060
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2003 12:56 pm
Location: Meepos (where charging for MP3s is illegal!)

Postby Commons Music » Sun Sep 04, 2005 8:30 pm

If you want, I could e-mail your concerns to Paul?
Commons Music
 
Posts: 12
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2005 8:57 am

PreviousNext

Return to Slyck News

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

© 2001-2008 Slyck.com