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 webe3 » Wed Aug 24, 2005 12:47 pm

@AussieMatt....you are taking my statements the wrong way.

I never said that the EFF was not for this current deal, but I do think that if the ISPs got out of line and started to filter everything that went through the service, they would intervine.
webe3
 
Posts: 756
Joined: Sat Jul 27, 2002 2:01 pm

Postby webe3 » Wed Aug 24, 2005 12:50 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!)"



Excuse me, but are you also including things like CREDIT CARD NUMBERS in your theory? If not, mabye you might think about it. P2P traffic is not the only information that goes through a ISP network. I still say it would be way too much trouble to monitor everything that goes through and ISPs don't want that job anyway.
webe3
 
Posts: 756
Joined: Sat Jul 27, 2002 2:01 pm

Postby Nick » Wed Aug 24, 2005 12:53 pm

I'm sort of looking forward to joining in on this one once I have assimilated the concept.

From what I can see, the idea of a filtered network administered by an ISP at what seems to be an extortionately high price (BT standard is now 2mb/s btw) and being prevented from using any P2P outside of that network seems risible.
Nick
 
Posts: 3840
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 7:38 am

Peeing in the pool

Postby zbeast » Wed Aug 24, 2005 1:32 pm

Any type of servie that connect to standard P2P tools. Blocks your access to normal non-drm'ed files and has you storing and tranding DRM'ed files should be avoided like the plague. Worse yet, they clame they can track all files being moved across there network.

This will not help P2P in anyway and in the long term weaken it as a tool.

If your buying files. Only use external services.
Itunes.com
allofmp3.com

heck use Usenet for downloads.

Doing anything that would encouraging ISP's to buy into playlouder or other products like it will hurt p2p not help.

Just Say no to DRM. Dont let Greedy coperations "induce" you to use products and help them run technologies that enable often unwitting consumers to house DRM'ed files on their computers. (orrin hatch) :)
zbeast
 
Posts: 6783
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 5:20 pm
Location: Behind that itch. yes, that one right there.

Postby Widdle » Wed Aug 24, 2005 3:57 pm

Here is a tech to defeat these types of models.Hamachi

SSL encryption over a psuedo-LAN network. Once development gets to a point where people may join public LAN's and connect to a P2P network (the devs will have to mod them to work over the Hamachi LAN adapter only - currently only DC++ hubs work) this tech will be nicely secure since all traffic is direct. I thought of implemeting this on my University network with friends who wanted to use P2P (my school caps web bandwidth usage) but decided it would be easier to just use Lan2P.

Kind of funny that the network is over 50,000 strong and they only use the default subnet.
User avatar
Widdle
 
Posts: 523
Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 10:17 am
Location: Sherwood Forest

Postby Not Sure, But... » Wed Aug 24, 2005 4:15 pm

I have been playing with Hamachi recently.... It's pretty cool, but you do realize it will be a paid service soon too don't you?

@ everyone who keeps saying they are stopping you from sharing non drm'd files outside the network or are forcing you to share drm'd files inside....

It has already been quoted on several occasions that they will not prevent music that is not theirs from leaving the network, just the files sponsored by them. It has also been said that the files will not be drm, that you can share any version of the file you want at any bitrate. You can even put your own rip out there.

These debates would work a heck of a lot better if people would read what is being said instead of reading into what is being said :lol:

Also, from what I have read, it is possible for these programs that will monitor this type of stuff to read the basic outline of the file and not neccessarily the detail(how do you like my detailed scientific data that backed that one up :P ?). This would mean your credit card info should be safe :)
Not Sure, But...
 
Posts: 84
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2005 9:56 am

Postby Drake » Wed Aug 24, 2005 4:35 pm

Not Sure, But... wrote:These debates would work a heck of a lot better if people would read what is being said instead of reading into what is being said :lol:


Perhaps these discrepancies would have been avoided if the information on their Website wasn't so ambiguous.

# Will subscribers be able to share files with users who are not subscribers to the PlayLouder service?

PH: "We aim to prevent close to 100% of P2P traffic from going outside the MSP "walled garden"."


Files...all files or just those identified by audible magic? Are we supposed to guess? They should have made it clear in their FAQ.

It still boils down to whether or not people are willing to accept a controlled environment. Also, several issues have not been addressed such as decoy files spread by anti-p2p companies.

People who are just getting into file sharing will probably download a lot of decoy files whether or not they use this service provider or not. Shouldn't the music industry stop hiring companies to spread decoy files if they're now charging them for the ability to download from networks they are flooding with fake files?
User avatar
Drake
 
Posts: 2060
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2003 12:56 pm
Location: Meepos (where charging for MP3s is illegal!)

Postby Nick » Wed Aug 24, 2005 4:53 pm

People who are just getting into file sharing will probably download a lot of decoy files whether or not they use this service provider or not. Shouldn't the music industry stop hiring companies to spread decoy files if they're now charging them for the ability to download from networks they are flooding with fake files?


Probably the only good reason to subscribe to Playlouder. Flood them with decoy crap :D
Nick
 
Posts: 3840
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 7:38 am

Postby BasicTek » Wed Aug 24, 2005 4:58 pm

rocketman05 wrote:Probably the only good reason to subscribe to Playlouder. Flood them with decoy crap :D


We could call it counterRIAAisism 8)

That would surely diminish the demand. I'm in. :wink:
Last edited by BasicTek on Sun Aug 28, 2005 10:00 am, edited 1 time in total.
"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 5:02 pm

Drake wrote:
Not Sure, But... wrote:These debates would work a heck of a lot better if people would read what is being said instead of reading into what is being said :lol:


Perhaps these discrepancies would have been avoided if the information on their Website wasn't so ambiguous.


True, but I thought that had already been cleared up in subsequent posts and quotes of articles/interviews.


Boy it sure is tough keeping up with 2 hot topics. I need a nap :lol:
Not Sure, But...
 
Posts: 84
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2005 9:56 am

Postby thejynxed » Thu Aug 25, 2005 12:33 am

Encrypt your data, run it over SSH or SSL via Linux. Oh wait, Linux doesn't recognize DRM schemes to begin with :)

Also, I work at a video/photolab. We rent videos, games and process photographs. The most I ever payed for a movie was for a special director's cut of the anime Spirited Away, which cost me 21.99 USD (it came with 2 dvds of bonus footage, interviews, etc). On average, movies cost me 6.99 USD for dvds. Unused DVDs. I would never pay for a download service when I get deals like that. Games cost me no more than 20.00 USD for a brand spanking new PS2 title. I have no reason to download backups or pay for p2p when items I want are so cheaply available to me.

I encourage download services however to reach an amiacable agreement between consumers and corporations. The free ride can't go on forever, but neither can the gold-digging on the part of media companies.

People want to get paid for their efforts, nothing wrong with that, as long as they charge a fair amount for their works. I see nothing wrong with sharing something you have directly with friends or family, but taking something you find on a dumpsite and just handing it over to someone you don't know is what is causing problems. In that case there is no compensation for the artist or developer, so of course they get angry.

I am all for paying a fair price for a fair object. It's when the objects aren't worth paying for and the prices are rediculously outrageous for the good stuff that I object.

Granted, I am married to a school teacher, I can't just nab shit for free. I don't want to risk a lawsuit, and besides the point, people should be compensated in some way for the work that they do. I just believe it needs to be on a merit level and not just some randomly tossed out nonsense by the RIAA, MPAA, etc who only truly represent themselves and not the artists they claim to represent.

Take my words how you want, I've had quite a few shots of Smirnoff this evening. I am suprised I am typing as well as I am.

Martin Luther King Jr. once said, "We have a moral repsonsibility to disobey laws that are unjust."
"FlickR is supposed to be weird, fun, experimental, way out-there -- oh no, wait, now that it's so close to being part of Microsoft, FlickR's supposed to bore people to death and empty their pockets while pretending to innovate." - Bruce Sterling
thejynxed
 
Posts: 1953
Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2004 12:22 pm
Location: In a Galaxy Far, Far Away....

Postby webe3 » Thu Aug 25, 2005 7:29 am

@...thejynxed....I can understand your position, but you must also understand mine. For years the RIAA and MPAA have chosen to sue, rather than try to reach an agreement with it's customers.

So the copyright owners are not the only ones who have a right to be angry. Why could not they have tried collective licensing before? I will give you an answer in one short word......GREED! You know it and I know it. The EFF has asked for collective licensing for years from the *AA's and they would not even consider it!

They knew all along that they COULD have reached an agreement with Napster when it first came out, but decided to shut it down because they wanted to control every aspect of music downloading and charge whatever they wated. Well now the shoe is on the other foot and they don't like not being in control. I say TOO FUCKING BAD!

When suing p2p companies like Napster didn't work, they tried suing their customers....a real dumb move. Now, it looks like they are finally admitting they are willing to accept collective licensing, but ONLY because they are forced to! Suing has had very little effect on P2P sites and when one goes down...three more pop up to take it's place!

If it had not been for the p2p networks and the trading of files that has went on and the *AA's seeming ability not to be able to stop it , I still don't think that the *AA's would try to get a collective licensing deal going even today.

So I am sorry, I trust them about as far as I can throw them. The only reason they are at this point now, is because they were forced to face facts! One of the facts being that p2p is here to stay, so if you can't beat them, you might as well make the best out of a bad situation and join them. But make NO MISTAKE..... that they are not doing this out of the "goodness of their heart", this is only an attempt to somehow take control of whatever they can. However little that is.

As I said, this may have been the smartest thing they have done so far, but yet I still can't help but wonder why they didn't try to do this earlier. The reason I believe is because they have been forced to.

I am not against anyone that makes a creative work being paid, but I AM against the Nazi tactics that the *AA's have used against filesharers and think that they are so desprate for control, that they will literally do anything including suing their own grandmther. Just something to think about.


Another thing I have noticed in your post is that you seem to get things legally for cheap because of your connections, you might want to keep in mind that not eveyone can get the stuff you have for the low prices you pay, as everyone does not have your connections. It is easy to say that you shouldn't download stuff when you only pay $20 for a $50 or $60 game.
webe3
 
Posts: 756
Joined: Sat Jul 27, 2002 2:01 pm

Postby Drake » Thu Aug 25, 2005 11:05 am

Not Sure, But... wrote:True, but I thought that had already been cleared up in subsequent posts and quotes of articles/interviews.


It hasn't been cleared up. I should have asked for the link to that quote AussieMatt posted earlier but it slipped my mind.

AussieMatt, can you post the link to the quote which indicates all P2P traffic won't be kept inside the "walled garden"? Unless this is clarified, I think we have to go by the info on their Website.
User avatar
Drake
 
Posts: 2060
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2003 12:56 pm
Location: Meepos (where charging for MP3s is illegal!)

Postby AussieMatt » Thu Aug 25, 2005 11:21 am

Ive actualy been in contact with Cory Doctorow from the EFF about Playlouder and he told me if a service uses any DRM the EFF would never support it .

Cory is supporting Playlouder because of the Voluntary Collective Licencing deal it has set up with Sony and the independants.Cory has done talks about DRM and how ineffictive it is to the likes of Microsoft .

Anyway heres the link you where looking for Drake....

http://www.boingboing.net/2005/08/22/cu ... w_uk_.html
AussieMatt
 
Posts: 1044
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2004 10:03 am

Postby Drake » Thu Aug 25, 2005 11:46 am

Thanks for the link. I found it odd that someone from the EFF would support this service so I did a little digging to find out if this guy actually does work for the EFF and found out that he does. He's the European affairs coordinator for the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

I've been reading several articles about this service and this is the only one that states only specific traffic will be prevented from leaving the service provider. I'd still like to see this clarified on their Website.

There's actually a lot of things that need to be clarified on their Website. I've read an article that states this service will protect their customers from viruses and spoof files. Their Wesbite makes no mention of this.

I still find it odd that he calls this service "the best thing to happen to the copyfight all year -- maybe all century." He also claims that this is what the EFF has been calling for all year. I disagree. Granted, he works for the EFF and I don't so he's in a better position to speak on their behalf, but I don't remember the EFF ever endorsing DRM.

I don't think it can be argued that DRM is not being applied from the service provider itself. Even if only certain traffic will be blocked from leaving the serice provider, the filter will be analyzing every file so DRM is always present.

EFF is also against filters such as Audible Magic. The EFF's voluntary collective licensing scheme never included filters of any kind. It did include an unobtrusive monitoring system, such as the one carried out by Big Champagne.
User avatar
Drake
 
Posts: 2060
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2003 12:56 pm
Location: Meepos (where charging for MP3s is illegal!)

Postby AussieMatt » Thu Aug 25, 2005 12:09 pm

Cory Doctorows Bio

http://www.craphound.com/bio.php

And His DRM speach to Microsoft Reasarch

http://craphound.com/msftdrm.txt
AussieMatt
 
Posts: 1044
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2004 10:03 am

Postby Freebird Mike » Thu Aug 25, 2005 12:20 pm

Drake wrote:EFF is also against filters such as Audible Magic. The EFF's voluntary collective licensing scheme never included filters of any kind. It did include an unobtrusive monitoring system, such as the one carried out by Big Champagne.


I would assume that if the voluntary collective licensing scheme was put in place globally, there wouldn't be a need for filtering.

Non-U.S. rights holders would, of course, be welcome to join the collecting society for their fair share of the fees collected from American file sharers. As for file sharers in other countries, there is every reason to believe that if a collective licensing approach is successful in the U.S., it will receive a warm welcome and enthusiastic imitation abroad.
Songlifter since 1999
User avatar
Freebird Mike
 
Posts: 292
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2004 11:12 pm
Location: Left of the Atlantic

Postby BasicTek » Thu Aug 25, 2005 2:17 pm

Freebird Mike wrote:I would assume that if the voluntary collective licensing scheme was put in place globally, there wouldn't be a need for filtering.


I think that's incorrect. The filtering is going to be used to determine which artist/label is being downloaded so they can figure out the % to pay each one.

Their goal is control of the network layer and the ISP(s) 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

Postby Freebird Mike » Thu Aug 25, 2005 2:47 pm

BASICTEK wrote:I think that's incorrect. The filtering is going to be used to determine which artist/label is being downloaded so they can figure out the % to pay each one.

Their goal is control of the network layer and the ISP(s) IMO


My comment was on the hypothetical case that the entire world accepted EFF's voluntary collective licensing scheme and, technically, every file shared becomes legal, hence no filtering of material would be required. The determination of what's being downloaded to compensate artists would be, as Drake says, an unobtrusive monitoring system, such as the one carried out by Big Champagne.
Songlifter since 1999
User avatar
Freebird Mike
 
Posts: 292
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2004 11:12 pm
Location: Left of the Atlantic

Postby eclectica » Thu Aug 25, 2005 6:28 pm

IF
a blog posting on a subject by Cory Doctorow represents the official EFF position or opinion, and

IF
an official EFF position or opinion is never different from my own opinion,

THEN
that means I endorse PlayLouder MSP :)
© copylefted
eclectica
 
Posts: 360
Joined: Fri May 30, 2003 10:50 pm
Location: p2p qaeda

Many questions, not nearly enough information

Postby jbond » Fri Aug 26, 2005 1:24 pm

- Will it be possible to download (not share/upload) Sony *and* Non-Sony music from outside PlayLouder. If so will it be only from authorised sources? So iTunes is OK, but AllOfMp3 isn't?

- Will non-Sony music be stopped when sharing outwards

- Playlouder have an agreement with Sony. What if you share your whole library and 3/4 of it is non-Sony. Do you still get sued?

- Which networks and ports are they watching? What if I use Soulseek, Usenet, Bittorrent, Next Greatest P2P thing?

- If I use Bittorrent they probably can't fingerprint the file until they have a significant part of it. Which means they will have to run a BT client. So will they seed?

- And most importantly, does Audible Magic work? And since it can't be 100%, what % positives and % false positives?

- I like obscure music from obscure labels and at least some of it is non-label direct from the artist. Will they get paid too?

I'm sure you can think of many more.

It may be a brave experiment but ultimately this boils down to market forces and whther the market considers them to be good value. And in these days of £15 entry level broadband and cable broadband jumping shortly to 10Mb, £26 for 1Mb doesn't look competitive.
jbond
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2005 3:11 am

Postby AussieMatt » Fri Aug 26, 2005 1:42 pm

Cory Doctorows article answers a few of your questions
http://www.boingboing.net/2005/08/22/cu ... w_uk_.html

For the rest you had better ask Playlouder yourself via thier support link .
AussieMatt
 
Posts: 1044
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2004 10:03 am

Postby paul7986 » Fri Aug 26, 2005 9:22 pm

I cant believe it took so long for this to finally happen. I say in the future your ISP bill will mirror you cell phone bill; have this amount of bandwidth per month (40 to 60 gigs a month)and anything over you'll pay extra for.

Though it would be great to pay about ten more dollars or twenty a month to legally download any file I want. But, realistically that wont materialize as that would mean less money for content creators. Also, ISPs are also are selling phone service, but why would I want to buy their service when Skype exists. Skype may not be so free to use in the future?

Paul
paul7986
 
Posts: 60
Joined: Sun Sep 19, 2004 5:51 am

Control

Postby Afn » Sat Aug 27, 2005 11:30 am

Control. The industry will strongarm ISP's and collude to make it's content the only content. By any means, they are big brother, they will be big brother and force industry content and eliminate all competition.

The only hope is to insure free and democratic transfer of information, without ANY second or third party monitoring or restricting access.

The industry produces more content than people can view in a lifetime. THey do this to control the market.

Let's share and help end corporatism and the good life only for a select few.
__________________
The National P2P Radio Show
http://www.allfloridanews.com/radio/np2prs/

LATEST SHOW: http://www.allfloridanews.com/radio/Nat ... 202005.mp3
My comments are licensed under a Creative Commons License.
Since 2003 The National P2P Radio Show. Download it today.
Afn
 
Posts: 53
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 9:59 am

Postby AussieMatt » Sun Aug 28, 2005 9:19 am

I think there has to be a very accurate open method of monitoring downloads or the Entertainment Industry will skew download figures in thier favor thus reciving a bigger percentage of the collective royalty pool.

Think about this the RIAA and its members could spawn thousands of bots to initate downloads on the contnet it wants to push in a given week to increase thier revenues and popularity of a given piece on contnet .
Downloads and Uploads need to be activly monitored so it is proven that the content actualy made it to the reciver intact if you dont do this the entertainment industry will skew the results in their favor by trying to cheat a collective system like they do with Big Champane .
AussieMatt
 
Posts: 1044
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2004 10:03 am

PreviousNext

Return to Slyck News

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

cron
© 2001-2008 Slyck.com