The answer to file sharing?
July 1, 2002 2:15 PM   Subscribe

The answer to file sharing? Woodstock Systems is Beta testing an Instant Message type music thinger. Essentially, the MP3's on your hard drive can be streamed by people on your buddy list, and vice versa. It also acts as a media player where you can play cds, streaming audio/video and mp3s in addition to ripping cds directly on to your hard drive. You can't download the MP3's though, so will any of those pesky laws that shut down Audiogalaxy and Napster apply?
posted by remlapm (23 comments total)
 
um...have you ever heard of aimster? this has already been done. it's just a new name with Windows Media Player integrated.
posted by wantwit at 2:17 PM on July 1, 2002


Aimster is still dowloading. This is the same as lending someone the CD, but not letting them burn it.

( plus, aimster sucks )
posted by remlapm at 2:20 PM on July 1, 2002


Similar (currently vaporware, but looks cool): Muse.net.
posted by lbergstr at 2:25 PM on July 1, 2002


yes aimster does "suck". however, when you lend somebody the cd you don't know that they didn't make a cassette tape copy of it (or a cd copy). you get your cd back with no guarantees that they didn't copy it. what this is is personal radio streaming.

good in the sense that you don't "waste" bandwidth on people you don't know but very bad because the continuation of cliques is not the social basis of the Internet.
posted by wantwit at 2:28 PM on July 1, 2002


You can't download the MP3's though, so will any of those pesky laws that shut down Audiogalaxy and Napster apply?

If the music is coming out of my speakers, I can capture, save, rip and burn it.
posted by tomorama at 2:33 PM on July 1, 2002


If the packets are going through my Internet connection, I can capture them, re-order them, save them, and assign them a file type.
posted by TurkeyMustard at 2:40 PM on July 1, 2002


ok, i was wrong about the capturing. My main point was is this service free of laws that brought down AG and Nap, since they were strictly download.

Essentially this is internet radio between your buddies.
posted by remlapm at 2:43 PM on July 1, 2002


If the packets are going through my Internet connection, I can capture them, re-order them, save them, and assign them a file type.

no need, m'man *cough*streamboxvcr*cough*.
posted by dorian at 2:55 PM on July 1, 2002


remlapm: My main point was is this service free of laws that brought down AG and Nap, since they were strictly download.

I'm assuming that's a question. In my opinion this "service" is not free from copyright laws. If they are not direct infringers, they will be considered contributory infringers.
They page you linked to throws around words like "lend" and "borrow." I wonder if these folks know that copyright owners enjoy exclusive (not withstanding some exceptions) lending rights?
posted by anathema at 3:07 PM on July 1, 2002


This is probably a "digital performance" which, yes, would make it subject to those "persky" copyright laws, just like webcast radio is.

If I understand the software correctly, each user would in effect be their own web-based radio station - but even worse, if the recipient can pick an individual song on demand.

The on-demand portion by itself would probably render this illegal. If I could go online and search among a group of other users for a song that I like, how is that different from actually copying the song onto my own hard drive?
posted by mikewas at 3:10 PM on July 1, 2002


If these services had any sense at all they would never advertise themselves as ways for people to infringe. They should advertise themselves as something else, then at least they could walk into a courtroom with "clean hands."
posted by anathema at 3:10 PM on July 1, 2002


"Digital Performance," "lending rights," etc. Dress it up and put lipstick on it...good/bad right/wrong, it is still infringement.
posted by anathema at 3:12 PM on July 1, 2002


Er, pesky.
posted by mikewas at 3:13 PM on July 1, 2002


Anathema, it would be infringement BECAUSE it is a digital performance, which is a legally separate right in a musical work which did not exist until very recently.

So, it's not just "dressing" but a substantive legal poitn that makes the difference between infringement and non-infringement.
posted by mikewas at 3:14 PM on July 1, 2002


mikewas: ...it would be infringement BECAUSE it is a digital performance...

Yeah, unforunately I am acutely aware of 17 USC ยง106(6). I wasn't saying that it was not a right unto itself, I was just trying to get across that these people are going to have a hard time escaping the Copyright Act altogether.
posted by anathema at 3:19 PM on July 1, 2002


I don't really get it. Are these companies just trying to get bought-out or what? The whole P2P defense has not been working too well in court as of late. And when you advertise yourself as they do...I mean really.
posted by anathema at 3:22 PM on July 1, 2002


Be Warned!

Microsoft may be covertly trying to TAKE OVER your computer to stop your piracy with a "Security Patch."

Further info from The Register.

The "Security Patch" is for Windows Media Player and may give Microsoft ADMIN PRIVILEGES over YOUR PC.
posted by kablam at 3:24 PM on July 1, 2002


Dress it up and put lipstick on it

What I was refering to here was the service, not the law.
posted by anathema at 3:25 PM on July 1, 2002


Hmm...how soon were they gonna make Windows Media Player removable again?
posted by rushmc at 3:44 PM on July 1, 2002


Muse.net isn't vaporware, it launched today.
posted by waxpancake at 5:09 PM on July 1, 2002


For me, the coolest thing about the RIAA's crusade is how the force of their determination to stop the file xfers is actually spurring developers to create new ways around their legal attacks. Thrust and parry for the 21st century.

Heres another promising p2p concept to advance the cause of socialized entertainment.
posted by BentPenguin at 5:59 PM on July 1, 2002


Muse.net: Very cool, quite intriguing, makes me think web services might be useful for something after all, possibly even worthy of its own thread?
posted by whatnotever at 8:07 PM on July 1, 2002


It would be nice if muse.net's site actually had a short description about what it does. "Universal remote control" doesn't really tell me anything and the list of features doesn't make sense without some more background.

So many geek projects which might be able to garner more widespread interest seem to fall down by failing to state in an accessible way what it is they actually do.
posted by kerplunk at 3:13 AM on July 2, 2002


« Older Should punishments be "creative"?   |   J.K. Galbraith shocked at scale of corporate... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments