PDA

View Full Version : Ok lets try to do what the record companies should be doing, instead...


SJ56
July 19th, 2003, 06:27 PM
...of sending RIAA after us.

Here's how I see a way of doing it.

The companies would have a common sharing program that users, after registering (choosing a unique alpha numerical ID)
and opening an account, would download a personalized program for them. (with a hidden PIN)
There would be 3 quality of files available; A, B and C.
A: 128k at cost x (ex: .75$) B: 192k at x +33% (1$) C: 320k at 2x (1.50$)

A user would request a song from the companies, and can receive it from the company itself (master) or from users that
already bought it and share it (locked)(certified copy). ( it would be like the original by a way of checking it's integrity;
if not like original, rejected)

To patronize those that share those files, each time a user upload a song 10 times, he would get credit for buying an other one of the same quality for free. (the more you share and upload, the more you can get free ones). To get better multi-downloads, the
uploaders would sent the file in 10% slices, earning credit for each successfully completed slice sent.

Modem users would be allowed 1 fixed upload slot (2K/s slice) (average minimum, else rejected) and 2 fixed download (2K
x2), and would do exchange mainly between themselves.
Fast users would be allowed fixed 6K/s slices (average, else rejected) (number of slots up to capacity). A max of 10 users
by file would be contributing to a multi-users exchange (user already sending a slice for a file would have priority to send other ones), resulting in an average 60K/s exchange, giving less than 2 min for a 5 megs file.

The way exchange would work: When a user search for a song, the master would send him a key containing the song hash to
search it. After successful completion, the downloader would send a completed flag to the master with his hidden NIP, along with
the info of user(s) that send him the song or part(s) of it. The master would then charge the song to the downloader account
and send a personalized key to unlock the song; and give credits to respective uploaders account.

So this is a brief way i see it; it surely can be improved.

DeadMan
July 19th, 2003, 07:57 PM
The fee should be the same for whatever bitrate you want and those prices suck. 50c per song or you can sign up for a quota of downloads per month of say $15-20. They could have a premium account for an 'all you can eat' charged at $35 per month.

Using a P2P system as you suggest giving credits to sharing the bandwidth is a reasonable idea though and would lower the cost to them for providing the bandwidth. However they might want to share stuff you don't already have to make things move better in which case using a temp cache of encrypted audio files (To you) makes sense.

The more you upload of their content the better your credit rating obviously. This would be on a sliding scale where top uploaders get special credits to free or discounted downloads and merchandis and/or events like concerts.

Top uploader of the month gets to win a prize of a guided tour of the RIAA offices ;)

Lucian
July 20th, 2003, 08:18 AM
This wont work because I wont pay the RIAA.

Why should we let the RIAA survive?

DeadMan
July 21st, 2003, 12:02 PM
It's mad really. All the big record companies are 'hiding' behind the RIAA. They are dumb because what the RIAA does today will harm the record companies tomorrow. The RIAA is supposedly representing the record companies interests after all and are paid by the record companies to protect them.

Rather than raking the RIAA over the coals we should try to rake the 'big 5' record companies over the coals directly.

The money is not going to the RIAA. It is going to the 'big 5' record companies who then pay a certain amount each towards the RIAA.

MP3Pr0
July 21st, 2003, 12:20 PM
I'm a techie and got confused only halfway through your idea. How do you expect the mainstream public to understand and use this?

isus
July 21st, 2003, 12:53 PM
what?

i saw money involved, and the riaa...

no.

DigitalJunkie
July 21st, 2003, 01:48 PM
Recording companies & politicians can't adopt to the new technologies, they need to be re-educated instead!!! If they do not protect the consumers first, both technologies & economy won't advance.

Otherwise, only the consumers will be hurt by those executives that shoulded been retired early! If they don't listen, don't support them with your money or your vote.

isus
July 21st, 2003, 03:06 PM
Originally posted by DigitalJunkie
Recording companies & politicians can't adopt to the new technologies, they need to be re-educated instead!!! If they do not protect the consumers first, both technologies & economy won't advance.

Otherwise, only the consumers will be hurt by those executives that shoulded been retired early! If they don't listen, don't support them with your money or your vote.

who had the avatar first?

Crazy Horse
July 21st, 2003, 03:17 PM
Originally posted by isus
what?

i saw money involved, and the riaa...

no.

Yep... My feelings too !!

It's too late for them. They need to come up with a new (consumer friendly) business model ... and I don't see that happening.

SJ56
July 21st, 2003, 09:39 PM
Originally posted by MP3Pr0
I'm a techie and got confused only halfway through your idea. How do you expect the mainstream public to understand and use this?

It's just an idea of a way it could be done from the companies sides.
For the users, it would simply be like a "legal" :wings sharing program.

Elistas
July 21st, 2003, 10:15 PM
Having different prices for different bitrates is a pretty dumb idea. You don't buy different quality CDs at the store. And $1.50 for one song? That's insane. It should not be more expensive to download an album than buying it from a store. There's no packaging, distribution, production costs etc. etc. etc. I think songs should be MAX $0.50 for a song. And that's being very liberal. $0.25 would be more like it.

Also, I already have many legal sharing programs. They're called Kazaa, Shareaza, BitTorent, eDonkey2000, SoulSeek... The RIAA and record labels missed their chance so fuck them. I'll pay $0.00 per song.

FileHoover
July 21st, 2003, 10:37 PM
I don't think the problem is the prices.

The problem is the selection.

Unless ALL the media companies agree to share ALL their content and make available ALL their content as far back as they can go in history, the pay services will not have the selection that the current p2p networks have.

Of course, this is impossible since the media companies just do not have certain recordings such as concert bootlegs, so, they will never be able to offer the rich content that current p2p provides.

The only way to fix this problem is to allow ANYONE to offer content, as long as they pay a certain percentage to the owner of the copyright. For example, if I offerred some Jackson Browne bootleg recordings that the record company itself never made, I would still owe them, or whomever owns the rights to Jackson Browne live recordings, a certain percentage.

If the knowledge of the world is to be released, it must be by default free of encumberance. The copyright holder must come along later and collect his fees. Having to make prior agreement to have rights to content is choking the flow of knowledge and entertainment to the world. And look, if you are doing well delivering someone else's content, you will be very visible publically and the owners can easily find you and extract their cut.

I am only guessing, but I think that, if you let people experiment with new means of distribution, the number of consumers for content will increase dramatically which should still allow the copyright holders to make good, hopefully even MORE money from their content.

PowerMan57two
July 21st, 2003, 11:34 PM
I wont do it either. I just like my free music. I download, if I like it I will buy the real thing. I don't want to pay monthly to test something out, and if I like it then go buy it. I like the real thing, like the cd cover, the real cd, all the extras.