Online music P2P business idea

[MP3Pr0]

Here's my idea for the music industry:

Start a P2P service like Napster, in which music is distributed amongst subscribers. Here's the lowdown:

1. User pays reasonable fee per month or year ($10/mo. or $75/year) for UNLIMITED music from a MASSIVE music library.
2. They log-in to the business server with the custom P2P app.
3. The server authenticates the user and then sends a node list for the user to connect to. Authentication is done by IP range and computer hardware key (or something of that sort).
4. They connect to other paid users on the network, and can search for music to download from either the server and/or other users.
5. When they download music, the music is sent in raw (unencrypted) form and then re-encrypted on their computer with their hardware key. The files aren't usable on other systems, but can be listened to and burned to CD by apps supporting this DRM method.
6. When others request their music, their computer decrypts the music on-demand and sends it to the receiving computers, which in turn re-encrypt the contents with their keys.

I think this is a good idea because:
+ Flat fee for unlimited music downloads. No charging per track or album.
+ The load on the business server is lightened by other P2P customers distributing bandwidth. (Result: less $ on bandwidth expenses.)
+ DRM is used, which would help prevent unauthorized copying.
+ The music industry can stay fat while the artists can get some scraps (which beats nothing).
+ Online distribution = less materials = less pollution
+ Point-and-click simplicity. No more waiting in line at the store.

[Lucian]

How exactly is this idea new?

You are really this stupid to post an idea everyone knows about in a place like this?

This must be a joke. I actually could come up with a better idea. How about building a P2P program which uses hosts video based commercials streamed through the web. Use Mpeg4, or whatever streaming format currenttly offers the best quality, of course this would only work with broadband.

Then you simply use the same commercials which pay for TV to pay for P2P. BannerAds do not work, video commercials will. Its just a matter of the advertising industry building the technology required to stream ads in a reliable way. I think we are getting close, and when the time is right, we will see free P2P services paid for by ads using the same businessplan which TV follows. You'll have channels like Universal, Interscope, Sony, Columbia and whatever, and you'll be able to download their files directly from these people (if they provide them)

Also you'll be able to share files with everyone connectted in the traditional way.

Perhaps these companies could charge an extra fee so people can subscribe to certain channels, and band members and musicians can interact with their fans online for a fee.

I think if we treat P2P like we treat TV, that someday it can work. I think if we try to make people pay a monthly fee before actually profiting off "free", it wont work.

Just like Cable couldnt work before Regular TV was invented. So profit off free, and then offer higher quality services with faster download speeds through a persons ISP when it comes time to upgrade to the next level of broadband.

You can then use the ISP layer to allow to pay the RIAA.

Now I'm not really for doing this, I want to see the RIAA die, so musicians can get directly paid and earn all the money, but I think my idea would work, while your IDEA I dont see working for a while because you dont compete with free unless you have something of better quality. So profit off free, and then offer higher quality, this way you profit off everyone.

[Lucian]

By the way I also forgot to mention, the DRM crap will NEVER work. Consumers when they pay for something want absolute control over what they pay for.

So this whole thing about the record companies deciding what we can and cannot do with the stuff we pay for, its not going to work with me, and I dont think the rest of the P2P community will stand for that.

This will NEVER work if DRM is included, the RIAA needs to stop being control freaks and just profit off the technology. They should understand that we wont pay in mass unless we have fair use rights which exceed the current fair use rights.

Oh and sorry for being critical of you, I guess its your second post here. But really you sound like someone who works for the RIAA trying to see if their business plan will work, I mean thats the exact plan pressplay uses.

[serrebi101]

that would not work, I know I am a huge minority here, but if there were vidio comercials in a p2p, that would mean, no blind people on the servus, lol I can see you saying so, lol, so I do not think that that would work, but something like that might, e.g audio comercials, in some form, with a half volume or something like that, so the blind person/s can here there screen reader, and the sighted person can actualley listen to there music, lol.
Edit: not saying blind people don't listen to music, heh.

[Lucian]

Video commercials can have sound. Geez, dont you think with all this mp3,ogg,aac,mpeg4 technology that we could put sound into the commercials so blind people can hear them? But honestly if you truely are blind I dont know how you manage to use the computer so well in the first place, and if you do, I highly doubt people would be trying to sell ads to such a minority audience.

Deaf people are a different story, but theres 0% chance of a deaf person using a P2P music sharing network.

I dont know, if theres any blind people on this forum who are reading this msg, you can figure it out for me because until now I didnt even know blind people used the net.


This should be very profitable though. Consider the fact that superbowl ads cost millions of dollars and theres maybe 25-50 million people watching the superbowl.

Over 60 million Americans use P2P, hundreds of millions around the world use it, if we had commercials in P2P (I dont mean banner ads), some company like say Microsoft could pay a few million dollars to advertise their Xbox game or whatever. Also this would bring in alot of money because the ads could be targeted. Someone could offer Xbox ads to a person who fills out a survey saying they like video games, computer ads like Dell and AOL to someone who likes computers, etc.

[Krell]

Mexican food is most Bean Rice Tortilla and Meat.

You arrange them in defferent combinations, but there's not too much variety.

All you new people are spewing the same thing thats already been discussed here for . . well . . . since the site began!

No matter what little twist you try to add, or how you think its some how more relavent than what we heard last week, its pretty much the same.

Take time to go back thru the threads, get a feel for whats really been happening in the P2P world for the past year, then see if you r e a l l y have anything new to add.

Also, before I even got to Lucian's post, I thought the same thing as he. If you come here to try to test your marketing hype or business model, you will not be well recieved. If I think you are with the RIAA or MPAA, you def will not be recieved! Probably booted.

[serrebi101]

I am blind, and yes I realize that comercials have sound. I just was saying that I know how this will work out, the comercials will use your wave volume control, like most media players excluding some kind of cd player. Unless the comercials had its own volume control, obviusly somewhat limited, this wouldn't work for everyone. When I say its own volume control, I mean something like winamps volume control.
Edit: hopefully that made sence.

[MP3Pr0]

OK, so my idea might not be new. So what? The bottom line is, the industry needs to change their current way of selling music. And YES, money SHOULD be charged -- artists need to make a living like the rest of us. I am willing to pay as long as it's not overkill like it is right now. I'm sick of listening to freeloaders who bitch that everything should be free. Get real.

As for working for the RIAA, LOL! I *wish*. I make minimum wage working in some grease joint. But continue to believe otherwise, if it gives you another excuse to post... :-)

Lucian, I agree with you, and your criticism is understood. The DRM would be cracked in no time. But at least it would give the industry a sense of security.

Continue on flamin'... I'll continue brainstormin' ;-)

[rainbowdemon]

If I think you are with the RIAA or MPAA, you def will not be recieved! Probably booted. I'm not trying to troll, but does anybody believe that the RIAA would bother with a site of this nature? They have proven that they don't care what we think. Their problem is what we do! If they cared about what we thought, they would be trying to deliver a quality product at a reasonable price. This isn't happening now, nor do I expect it to happen anytime soon! Just my thoughts on the matter.:tilted

[Lucian]

The RIAA pays people to try to "re-educate" which is another word for brainwash us into following their rules.

I've seen it myself, these people decide to post here with names like "respectrights" and other stupid names, and then try to convince people that they are pirates.

I cant see a sane person coming to a site like this to convince us all we are pirates unless they were getting paid. Yes I do think the RIAA would come here because they know we are pissed off and ready to boycott, they want to do everything they can to stop any grassroots movement, and convince us to stop filesharing.

So its reasonable to believe some RIAA people might show up here and try to pretend to be one of us.

[Brycen257]

I agree with both Lucian and Krell in expressing suspicion about the proposal made by MP3Pr0 . I have also seen similiar proposals before both here at Zeropaid and at other forums so nothing new was added . If MP3Pr0 or others are coming here to
re-educate us (or brainwash us) , they should understand the following :

a. Most people here don't give a shit what they say.
b. Most people are not going to change their file sharing habits.
c. They should be booted out on their asses and banned.

While I recognize that their needs to be some room for dissent in any group, its suspicious that a newcomer makes it their first priority to post proposals to change the way files are shared on the internet . Suspicious, you bet your ass !!!!

I also have seen numerous newcomers both here and at other forums that seem to join up only for a specific purpose (ie spouting RIAA shit or trying to get people to join some site or try a new product etc ) and then disappear and are never heard from again. My guess is this is whats happening here also.

[isus]

after reading "UNLIMITED music from a MASSIVE music library", it became obvious this won't work. the record companies have decided to shoot themselves in the foot and help push p2p along.

instead of backing ONE legal music store type thing, they all go nuts with it, and now we have 10 music stores.

then you have idiots like linkin park and metallica who are trying to save the lp album, and won't sell any of their singles.

so, if you could get the massive library together, then it might work. then there is this too:
"the music is sent in raw (unencrypted) form and then re-encrypted on their computer with their hardware key"

if it is ever sent unencrypted, someone will figure out how to skip the whole pay process, and just pick up random, clean songs on their way around the web.

[PatientSaint]

Artists haveto get paid...the problem is the labels are getting more then the lions share. Lucian i completely agree with you on DRM.

As for the business model there's alot of ways it could've been done had the RIAA deceided to embrace technology and online distribution like the rest of the damn world! ..oh well their loss is consumer's gain.

Music is art. What good is Art if it's not seen or heard.....like al lart it should be here for us to enjoy and in such an ugly world sometimes remind us that theres still some beauty left....

[mp3master1215]

a napster program that will be free would be great!

[XtraNtnse]

Won't work, can't work, will never work. :mellow