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 AussieMatt » Tue Aug 23, 2005 6:59 pm

Theres really no use in putting DRM on this content becuse its all shared within network and the artists get paid from a central pool of funds in a colllective licencing scheme .
AussieMatt
 
Posts: 1044
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2004 10:03 am

Postby webe3 » Tue Aug 23, 2005 7:11 pm

As far as other copyrighted material...I don't think they will be looking for that.Mostly they will be concerned with just what kinds of music files go through this network,that should keep them busy enough, even then it seems there are ways around the restrictions.

So I don't see all the "gloom and doom" that others might see in this ISP. I don't think everything will be logged. For one, if they logged everything that went through, it would be a privacy issue and you can bet the american civil liberties group, EFF and others would intervine. Also, it would take more rescources to keep track of everything that went through the ISP itself. So I just do not see it happening. Probably what will happen, is that they will concentrate their efforts on music sharing.

But no matter what they do, people will always find a way around any restrictions they make. You can count on that.
webe3
 
Posts: 756
Joined: Sat Jul 27, 2002 2:01 pm

Postby david33850 » Tue Aug 23, 2005 7:15 pm

I thought it was interesting that sony would get 40% of the take if 40% of the content was their material. Evidently it doesn't matter which artists music was most popular even though it all travels through computers. Judging by a lot of the music, it's whoever they promote anyway.

It will definitely establish that an ISP can control their network and br resposible for it in the same way as cable tv protects their premium content. It's always been theoretically possible to control traffic on a university or P2P network but never an ISPs reponsibility to even try. I guess Sony doesn't own any ISPs the way warner does. They're all really out to get each other anyway. Phone companies, cable companies and Bill Gates. Gates will win with that vista crap.
david33850
 
Posts: 145
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 12:50 am

Postby Vulture » Tue Aug 23, 2005 7:16 pm

All ISPs have the right to log what you are sending through their services, and to cut you off should you get caught pirating stuff (heaven forbid!)

Apart from the censorship issues, this seems to be a superb idea. £6.99 extra for all the music you can download, risk-free and without digital restrictions? Sounds good to me. But it also seems like creeping regulation - p2p networks coming under the control of large companies. It seems to benefit us, so we don't complain and sign up. But they slowly introduce more and more limitations, and we'd end up with 99p - a - song itunes style extortion.
selenographer razored won't be a googlewhack for long.
User avatar
Vulture
 
Posts: 933
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2004 9:30 am

Postby AussieMatt » Tue Aug 23, 2005 7:19 pm

webe3 wrote:For one, if they logged everything that went through, it would be a privacy issue and you can bet the american civil liberties group, EFF and others would intervine.

The EFF representitive in England Cory Doctorow has endorsed this service because it is very close to thier Voluntary Collective Licencing white paper they released last year .
Last edited by AussieMatt on Tue Aug 23, 2005 7:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
AussieMatt
 
Posts: 1044
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2004 10:03 am

Postby BasicTek » Tue Aug 23, 2005 7:25 pm

Not Sure, But... wrote:This has got to be one of the best ideas around.


This was a brilliant idea for the MIAA

Not Sure, But... wrote:Who cares if the file is drm'd? All they are doing is making sure that the artists get some of the money you are paying your isp.


Who's pocket do you think this will come from? Yours or the ISP? This will either drive up ISP prices or prevent ISP price cuts. Either way if they get their wish and this spreads to more or all ISP's the MIAA may have effectively found a way to force all online to pay them as if you signed up for itunes etc.

Not Sure, But... wrote:I did not see anywhere that they will limit what you play the file on (especially as you can rip your own cd's and share them, can't see how they could limit that).


Why would they care? By going after the ISP's they may effectively get paid by all online customers whether you RIP or not.

Not Sure, But... wrote:This should make everyone happy, and like I said in the other topic on this, I can't wait until they start doing movies 8).


And I'm sure the MPAA will like this idea too and again more price hikes to get online.

Not Sure, But... wrote:I would also think this has the potential to make things even cheeper.... Cut out the middle man of things like PI (sorry PI :wink: ) and the overhead gets even lower.


Agreed it will be cheaper than ISP + itunes + whatever there is for movies. But it will be more expensive the the current ISP + P2P.

Their next step will be to twist the laws to force ISP's to this model.

By attacking this angle it won't matter what evolves in P2P because it won't be illegal to share movies and music anymore but if you want access to the internet you have to pay the MIAA/MPAA.

What's even worse is that ISP's will welcome these law changes because it puts them all on equal ground.

I may be overthinking this but it all makes some kind of sickening sense.
"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 DBG » Tue Aug 23, 2005 7:29 pm

There have been talks for years about "if every ISP charged their customers a 3$ fee, everyone could have legal access to unlimited music". I still think this is a step in a very good direction, as the consumer is likely to be the winning in the long run (might take a few years tho x.x). It will be interesting to track the success/failure of this service.
DBG
 
Posts: 36
Joined: Fri Feb 11, 2005 10:15 pm

Postby Not Sure, But... » Tue Aug 23, 2005 8:10 pm

BASICTEK wrote:Who's pocket do you think this will come from? Yours or the ISP? This will either drive up ISP prices or prevent ISP price cuts. Either way if they get their wish and this spreads to more or all ISP's the MIAA may have effectively found a way to force all online to pay them as if you signed up for itunes etc.

I have no problem with paying especially if they do like has been said. They monitor who you dl and that group/company gets the money. If it is all in one and I only need to pay one bill, with no late fees, they have just solved most of my issues with renting at the local movie place.

BASICTEK wrote:Why would they care? By going after the ISP's they may effectively get paid by all online customers whether you RIP or not.


Do you really think this won't go mainstream? If it does, most people will be doing this so I would think it would average out. And if not, I would assume you could get the "lite" version for a lower fee, but then be responsible for any potential violations :wink:

BASICTEK wrote:Agreed it will be cheaper than ISP + itunes + whatever there is for movies. But it will be more expensive the the current ISP + P2P.


You're right, it would be more expensive then the current isp and stealing :lol:

BASICTEK wrote:Their next step will be to twist the laws to force ISP's to this model.


I hope so, then you would have no limits with who you share with, which seems to have been one of the previous worries.
BASICTEK wrote:By attacking this angle it won't matter what evolves in P2P because it won't be illegal to share movies and music anymore but if you want access to the internet you have to pay the MIAA/MPAA.

What's even worse is that ISP's will welcome these law changes because it puts them all on equal ground.

I may be overthinking this but it all makes some kind of sickening sense.


But according to what has been said so far, they would only get a percentage based on what you download. If you don't get their stuff, they don't get your money (unless of course they do end up buying all the isp's, but that is another discussion :P )
Not Sure, But...
 
Posts: 84
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2005 9:56 am

Postby AussieMatt » Tue Aug 23, 2005 8:24 pm

If you only download Independent artists and use the RIAA radar with this scheme you are not supporting the major labels and the money from the subscription pool goes to the artists independent label.

At the moment when you download major record label content from a filesharing network your download is probably logged and used in Market analysis by Companies like Big Champagne that is given back to the record labels so they can determine what's being shared and popular so they can make marketing decisions based on p2p data ...Therefore you are supporting the major record labels even though you don't know it.
AussieMatt
 
Posts: 1044
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2004 10:03 am

Postby Drake » Tue Aug 23, 2005 8:57 pm

AussieMatt wrote:The EFF representitive in England Cory Doctorow has endorsed this service because it is very close to thier Voluntary Collective Licencing white paper they released last year .


If this is the case hasn't the EFF done a complete 180 on the issue of DRM? From what I remember, the EFF proposed a voluntary collective licensing scheme that allowed anyone to join in my paying an extra $5/month to be able to download as much music as they wanted.

The EFF proposal did not include any sort of digital rights management, including software such as audible magic or any other type of filter. It's interesting that the EFF doesn't oppose filters since they are viewed as an invasion of privacy by many people, including eDonkey's President.

Paying £26.99/month for a 1Mbit/s ADSL isn't cheap either and for those who are eager for a similar movie downloading service, you can rest assured that you will be paying double that amount if you want to download both music and movies.

It will be interesting to see if this filter will hinder regular P2P traffic in any way.
User avatar
Drake
 
Posts: 2060
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2003 12:56 pm
Location: Meepos (where charging for MP3s is illegal!)

Postby Drake » Tue Aug 23, 2005 9:01 pm

AussieMatt wrote:At the moment when you download major record label content from a filesharing network your download is probably logged and used in Market analysis by Companies like Big Champagne that is given back to the record labels so they can determine what's being shared and popular so they can make marketing decisions based on p2p data ...Therefore you are supporting the major record labels even though you don't know it.


That has to be one of the most ridiculous deductions I've ever read. Those who share copyrighted music files for free are supporting the major record labels? No, they're only supporting them if they're funding them by purchasing songs from the major labels on pay services and accept DRM.
User avatar
Drake
 
Posts: 2060
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2003 12:56 pm
Location: Meepos (where charging for MP3s is illegal!)

Postby BasicTek » Tue Aug 23, 2005 9:12 pm

DBG wrote:There have been talks for years about "if every ISP charged their customers a 3$ fee, everyone could have legal access to unlimited music". I still think this is a step in a very good direction, as the consumer is likely to be the winning in the long run (might take a few years tho x.x). It will be interesting to track the success/failure of this service.


Current proposed model is £6.99(roughly $12 US) for Sony alone. Add the other record labels and the MPAA, heck maybe even the BSA. ISP's could actually double in price or more. MIAA/MPAA aren't known for their genorosity. They don't want what is fair they want to make a killing like they've been doing.

Not Sure, But... wrote:I have no problem with paying especially if they do like has been said. They monitor who you dl and that group/company gets the money. If it is all in one and I only need to pay one bill, with no late fees, they have just solved most of my issues with renting at the local movie place.


Wait untill you see the price you'll have to pay. :shock:

Not Sure, But... wrote:Do you really think this won't go mainstream? If it does, most people will be doing this so I would think it would average out. And if not, I would assume you could get the "lite" version for a lower fee, but then be responsible for any potential violations :wink:


If they pass laws requiring ISP's to conform to this model it's unlikely there will be a lite version available and everyone will be forced to pay the new higher price

Not Sure, But... wrote:I hope so, then you would have no limits with who you share with, which seems to have been one of the previous worries.


No limits yes but half of your ISP fee would be going to the evil empire whether you download or not.

Not Sure, But... wrote:But according to what has been said so far, they would only get a percentage based on what you download. If you don't get their stuff, they don't get your money (unless of course they do end up buying all the isp's, but that is another discussion :P )


If this goes mainstreme everybody will be forced to pay a higher fee to their ISP (likely a much higher fee) and the % of that higher fee will be divided up between the MIAA labels, and probably the MPAA, and maybe even the BSA. This model has nothing to do with the users that download it's aimed at raising ISP prices and splitting it up amongst the already too rich evil empires of the entertainment industry
"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 AussieMatt » Tue Aug 23, 2005 9:17 pm

From Corys Boing Boing post there doesn't seem to be any DRM that's what I got from reading it
Cory Doctorow wrote:* 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


and the EFF proposal always has stated there has to be some sort of network monitoring so the subscription pool money can be divided up amongst the rights holders.

The Money: Dividing It Up

The money collected would then be divided between artists and rights-holders based on the relative popularity of their music.

Figuring out what is popular can be accomplished through a mix of anonymously monitoring what people are sharing (something companies like Big Champagne and BayTSP are already doing) and recruiting volunteers to serve as the digital music equivalent of Nielsen families. Billions in television advertising dollars are divided up today using systems like this. In a digital environment, a mix of these approaches should strike the right balance between preserving privacy and accurately estimating popularity

http://www.eff.org/share/collective_lic_wp.php




And remember the EFF White Paper is a proposal...not a plan .
Last edited by AussieMatt on Tue Aug 23, 2005 9:21 pm, edited 2 times in total.
AussieMatt
 
Posts: 1044
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2004 10:03 am

Postby altpdend » Tue Aug 23, 2005 9:17 pm

TALK ABOUT BIG BOTHER NO THANKS
altpdend
 
Posts: 276
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2004 1:35 pm

Postby Drake » Tue Aug 23, 2005 9:24 pm

AussieMatt, yes they do suggest that a company such as Big Champagne or BayTSP monitor what is being shared, but this is very different than implementing a filter such as audible magic.

Audible magic, combined with the setup of this ISP, acts as digital rights management. This serivce doesn't just monitor what is being shared so that they can correctly distribute money to the record labels, it also prevents files from being shared.

This system goes well beyond what the EFF proposed. If I'm not mistaken, the EFF is opposed to mandatory filters on every P2P network. Perhaps they aren't against this filter because it only applies to this service provider, but any way you slice it, there is digital rights management involved.
User avatar
Drake
 
Posts: 2060
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2003 12:56 pm
Location: Meepos (where charging for MP3s is illegal!)

Postby AussieMatt » Tue Aug 23, 2005 10:02 pm

The EFF are not worried about Audible magic becuse they have proven it can easilly be circumvented by encryption in this EFF White Paper.

Audible Magic — No Silver Bullet for P2P Infringement
Last edited by AussieMatt on Tue Aug 23, 2005 10:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
AussieMatt
 
Posts: 1044
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2004 10:03 am

Postby BasicTek » Tue Aug 23, 2005 10:08 pm

AussieMatt wrote:The EFF ar'nt worried about Audible magic becuse they have proven it can easilly be circumvented by encryption in this EFF White Paper.

[url)http://www.eff.org/share/?f=audible_magic.html[/url]


This is a good thing.

Lets hope the RIAA can't sell this idea to anymore ISP's
"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... » Wed Aug 24, 2005 3:37 am

BASICTEK wrote:If this goes mainstreme everybody will be forced to pay a higher fee to their ISP (likely a much higher fee) and the % of that higher fee will be divided up between the MIAA labels, and probably the MPAA, and maybe even the BSA. This model has nothing to do with the users that download it's aimed at raising ISP prices and splitting it up amongst the already too rich evil empires of the entertainment industry


My thing is, how many people pay for satelite dishes so they can watch more then the 2 or 3 basic channels, how many people pay for cable so they can do the same thing, on top of that people rent movies and pay late fees. They pay for all of this indidvidualy, but they pay for it.

This model has the potential to make things less expensive accross the board. People who cannot afford these luxuries may now have it within their finacial grasp and it could be a one stop shopping deal.

Look at this from another point of view...With this model, where you pay a flat fee and the companies only get a percentage based on what you download. When they get more companies to sign on and they are competeing for that $, they may actually need to start producing quality instead of quantity.

People will readily have access to what they want, and can see what is really popular based on what is being downloaded versus what the labels force down our throats over the airwaves.

I have seen complaints about PI (not trying to bring them into it) and the artists some here think they have available. The complaint is something about them not making a big deal about the top 40.

It seems to me, after reading some articles on this website, that the top 40 is based on what gets played on the radio the most (instead of what gets purchased the most and the quality of the music), and what gets played on the radio the most is based on who gets paid what at the station to play a particular song a certain amount of times.

I would rather have to listen to a song I don't like on the radio over and over again because the people have decided what is currently good rather then because this label has more money then that one and is paying for it to get played :lol:

I guess I just have more faith that the customer is going to get heard pretty soon, and decisions will be made based on that. Not because I think the *AAS's will suddonly realize that is a better way, but because with the new options people have, they are going to be forced into it.
Not Sure, But...
 
Posts: 84
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2005 9:56 am

Postby Not Sure, But... » Wed Aug 24, 2005 3:43 am

Drake wrote:This serivce doesn't just monitor what is being shared so that they can correctly distribute money to the record labels, it also prevents files from being shared.


But from what I have read, it will only prevent its labels from being shared, not others. And as more isp's sign on, the less you need to worry about your files being stopped.

Besides, what do you care if the artist you like enough to have on your hard drive actually gets a little cash from you and others download?

As I said in my previous post, I have a little more hope that the customer will have more influence in how this plays out then we currently do.
Not Sure, But...
 
Posts: 84
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2005 9:56 am

Postby david33850 » Wed Aug 24, 2005 8:20 am

It will prove beyond any reasonable doubt that ISPs are able to filter undesirable content off of their networks and out of their computers. There will always be exceptions to the rule the same way that they forget to turn off premium televison services or cable television to some houses. That doesn't mean they should break out all the windows at the house where they forget to turn it off. Some houses or apartments will always use the brute force method and run a tv cable house to house. It'll be such a small percentage to be insignificant.

Time warner and comcast and other cable internet suppliers that own content wont like the idea of being internet police because it will cost them money and make them responsible. So in the long run sonys limited menu won't work for anything other than to prove the isp can filter. Meanwhile gates will make it so every phone call and music and movie and software will have to check with his server to see if the name is on the list to protect everyones content making him the one ring that rules them all.
david33850
 
Posts: 145
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 12:50 am

Postby BasicTek » Wed Aug 24, 2005 8:32 am

Not Sure, But... wrote:I guess I just have more faith that the customer is going to get heard pretty soon, and decisions will be made based on that. Not because I think the *AAS's will suddonly realize that is a better way, but because with the new options people have, they are going to be forced into it.


You have a much more positive outlook than I. To me this just seems like another way for the rich to get richer and the consumer/customer getting the shaft. These companies have a monopoly and from my point of view this model is just a way for them to keep full control of that monopoly.

Although you're completely right in what you said about over paying for cable/sattelite when you only use a few channels that is probably where the future of online filesharing is heading. I guess only time will tell.
"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 BasicTek » Wed Aug 24, 2005 8:38 am

Not Sure, But... wrote:Besides, what do you care if the artist you like enough to have on your hard drive actually gets a little cash from you and others download?


Do you really think they are doing this for the artists???

Since when did the MIAA start caring about the artists???

The artist will gain from this about as much as they do from CD sales which if I remember corectly is less than 1%
"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... » Wed Aug 24, 2005 10:10 am

This is where we have to hope the artists decide for themselves it is better to break away from the labels I suppose.

If they mix the setups that allow the artists to get paid most of the proceeds'(there are websites that do this, I cannot think of what they are called right now) and this style of isp, that would be better for all around.

But it is really up to the consumer to decide how they want to purchase the material, and the artist to decide that they would be better off (along with their fan base) moving into these other systems.
Not Sure, But...
 
Posts: 84
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2005 9:56 am

Postby eMbry00s » Wed Aug 24, 2005 10:41 am

I didn't care to read the second page. Just wanted to say this:

P2P traffic is restricted to the inside of the network, if we are to trust the FAQ.

This means that nobody inside the network will be able to bring in music into the network via their internet connection. This will greatly slow down the process of new information going there, and obscure music most assuredly will take ages to get on their network (unless you encrypt).

Also, double zipping won't work. It's easy enough to itterate downwards into the archives. You don't even need a limit, just go down and down using a recursive function.[/list]
eMbry00s
 
Posts: 85
Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 4:22 am

Postby Not Sure, But... » Wed Aug 24, 2005 11:14 am

eMbry00s wrote:I didn't care to read the second page. Just wanted to say this:

P2P traffic is restricted to the inside of the network, if we are to trust the FAQ.

This means that nobody inside the network will be able to bring in music into the network via their internet connection. This will greatly slow down the process of new information going there, and obscure music most assuredly will take ages to get on their network (unless you encrypt).

Also, double zipping won't work. It's easy enough to itterate downwards into the archives. You don't even need a limit, just go down and down using a recursive function.[/list]


If you had read even the first page this would have been answered for you :wink:

They only limit sharing of their own label to their network. They prevent it from leaving their network and monitor it's use so as to pay the appropriate people.
Not Sure, But...
 
Posts: 84
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2005 9:56 am

PreviousNext

Return to Slyck News

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

© 2001-2008 Slyck.com