This is the way to download music

July 24, 2003 10:54 AM

It's a crazy idea, but it just might work. Anyone have a couple of million to invest in getting rich and putting the RIAA out of business?
posted by tdismukes (53 comments total)

Of course, if you have a couple of million, I guess you're already rich. Make that "... invest in getting richer and putting the RIAA out of business."
posted by tdismukes at 10:58 AM on July 24, 2003

It seems like instead of selling shares of common stock, what you'd really want to do is to make it a partnership (like an LLC), of course that might open the "owners" up to litigation.

Also, selling shares to new members through splits effectively dilutes everyone else's share value. I doubt the SEC would go for this.

An additional improvement might be to base the company in either a foreign country or, like Kazaa, base the components of the overall service in different countries.

Either way, you could test this whole theory by setting up a test company that only owns 100 CDs in a specific genre.
posted by bshort at 11:17 AM on July 24, 2003

I love the idea and I'd love to see it happen. But I have absolutely no difficulty imagining the legislation that would outlaw it. It rests upon the idea that shareholder status gives you joint ownership of the music collection. All congress has to do is say that joint owners don't have simultaneous fair use rights and this thing sinks like a rock.
posted by George_Spiggott at 11:17 AM on July 24, 2003

In fact, let me put it this way: you and your best bud split the cost of buying a CD, and enter into a verbal agreement that you own it jointly. Do you both have fair use rights to carry around a ripped copy on your MP3 player? I have no idea what the position of the current law is, but the RIAA will go off like a writ grenade if somebody tries it on a large scale.
posted by George_Spiggott at 11:21 AM on July 24, 2003

Why can't we all just pay an ASCAP (like) fee on a yearly basis that permits us to listen to, download and share, any piece of commercially available music?
posted by shoepal at 11:25 AM on July 24, 2003

I don't think the dollar figures given are worth a hill of beans since he's basing a lot on comparable Napster numbers - and Napster was at the height of the dot com stock value bubble. But I do find the underlying idea very intriguing and I'd almost certainly buy a share myself.

An additional improvement might be to base the company in either a foreign country...

How about Sealand?
posted by dnash at 11:26 AM on July 24, 2003

Sounds a bit too socialistic for the RIAA to let it live longer than a day or two.
posted by Phlops at 11:29 AM on July 24, 2003

Yeah, I agree with George. Watch the legislation fly! I think what might happen is that CD makers may have to put EULAs on the CDs. If a company owns a copy of software, it doesn't give everyone who owns the company the right to use that software.

AC DC - The family edition.
Metallica Server - 20,000 seat liscense - wait, isn't that a concert?
posted by jopreacher at 11:32 AM on July 24, 2003

What's the difference between this business plan and how Blockbuster/Hollywood video stores are run? BB/HW buys every movie and then rents it. Of course, you, as the viewer/renter, doesn't physically own the DVD/VHS tape/etc but since you are a member you can rent the movie as many times as you want. My idea is a simplified version of their rental plans, you also have to deal with late fees, damaged tapes and used items that are sold and replaced over time. Cringely's plan sure does put a lot of money at stake which might stir up an over-inflated interest in the IPO and ultimately wind up being a curse for the company.
and how long will it be before Amazon/AOL/HugeDotComInc purchase Snapster?
posted by lsd4all at 11:34 AM on July 24, 2003

What if the RIAA does a shrinkwrap license on all the CDs Cringely is going to buy that sez: "no fractional ownership allowed."

Can't they kill this whole thing with the sorts of EULA's that we see from M$?
posted by Mid at 11:38 AM on July 24, 2003

lsd4all: you're not allowed to keep a copy of the movie you rent, so it's the same as if you lent your copy out -- there's only the individually-purchased legitmate copy being watched at any given time.
posted by George_Spiggott at 11:39 AM on July 24, 2003

Where oh where are the MeFi lawyers? I'd love to hear the legal perspective on this idea from someone who actually knows the law. Cringley says "There are precedents for group ownership of recordings...", but he doesn't list the actual cases involved.
posted by tdismukes at 11:49 AM on July 24, 2003

If a company owns a copy of software, it doesn't give everyone who owns the company the right to use that software.

It doesn't? I was under the impression that if a company purchases, say Norton Anti-virus, with a business-license agreement with Norton, that it could be installed on every workstation in the company (even if those workstations were at people's homes).

If the COMPANY owns the software, yes. If someone just buys a copy of the software FOR the company, then no. But I may have no idea what I'm talking about.
posted by Witty at 11:49 AM on July 24, 2003

i still don't see how the artists make any money here...
posted by osquigle at 11:53 AM on July 24, 2003

Uh, newsflash, artists?

Sure, record companies screw musical acts out of money, but big artists make a lot of money. There was no mention of artists in the entire article -- just some drivel about IPOs, music consumers, and record labels. Saying you could do this, and I doubt that, for the currently available albums. What's giong to happend as people want to make new music? Snapster does not deal with it at all, except to say

"Thanks primarily to personal computers, musicians today can afford to make recordings in their homes that are comparable in quality to anything coming from a $500 per hour recording studio. "

Ok, but how are they getting paid?

[on preview: what osquigle said, but longer.]
posted by zpousman at 11:57 AM on July 24, 2003

Technically, you could set up the servers so that one recording may only be accessed by one user at any given time, which would not qualify as simultaneous use.
posted by clevershark at 12:00 PM on July 24, 2003

I was under the impression that if a company purchases, say Norton Anti-virus, with a business-license agreement with Norton, that it could be installed on every workstation in the company (even if those workstations were at people's homes).

'Zackly. They're not just purchasing one copy of Norton Anti-Virus; they're purchasing one copy of Norton Anti-Virus and a license agreement. If they had purchased only Norton Anti-Virus, they couldn't install it throughout the company.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 12:01 PM on July 24, 2003

Oh please, people. This scheme isn't legal even under current laws. If it were, any corporation could buy one copy of Microsoft Office and distribute it to every employee's desktop computer for free. Sheesh!

I'm really sorry the record companies haven't come up with a decent on-line distribution system yet, and I know we would all like to pay less for music, but Cringeley's article is nothing but glib, ignorant wanking.
posted by twsf at 12:04 PM on July 24, 2003

So. I'm an indie musician without any RIAA affiliation, and Snapster buys one of my $10 CDs and makes it available to 60 million potential users under Fair Use? What?

I'm convinced that music itself will be worthless one day, and the only people able to profit will be those who tour their asses of. And of course, the most successful will be the ones with the most promotional dollars. Which won't be me, because even though Cringely's right that it's cheaper to record and distribute music now, it still costs money, and if I can't recoup even the lousy $300 I spent to make the record in the first place, how the hell am I supposed to afford the "marketing service providers" (a.k.a. what Cringely says the record labels will devolve into) to promote my stuff?

This is the stupidest idea I've ever heard. We want to shrink the entertainment industry, not kill it off completely.
posted by scottandrew at 12:17 PM on July 24, 2003

I think it's legally dubious, but I like the inventiveness. I'd buy a share.

If new CDs were introduced with EULAs, participants could voluntarily contribute, say, one old and EULA-less CD from their collection to fill in the back-catalog. Still leaves the problem of new releases.
posted by adamrice at 12:17 PM on July 24, 2003

Okay, first of all, I think the courts have struck down the idea of EULAs on Books and CDs (it's been tried before).

However, for this to work, wouldn't Snapster have to actually own the copyright to a piece of music? Perhaps if you started a socialistic record company that let stock holders download music in this scheme. Now *that* could just work.
posted by Kovax at 12:19 PM on July 24, 2003

And--this is admittedly on very thin ice--one might make the case that if the number of tracks in circulation did not exceed the number of participants, there would be no violation. Going by RXC's numbers, that would mean the service would top out at, say, 1 million "legal" users before they'd have to start buying duplicate CDs.
posted by adamrice at 12:21 PM on July 24, 2003

Oh please, people. This scheme isn't legal even under current laws. If it were, any corporation could buy one copy of Microsoft Office and distribute it to every employee's desktop computer for free. Sheesh!

There is no direct parallel between computer software and music on CD. The software's EULA specifically details the terms of ownership whereas the ownership of music on a disc is only spelled out on the lawbooks.
posted by jpoulos at 12:25 PM on July 24, 2003

Hey TWSF,
your MS Office example doesn't cut it. Currently, you can do a network install of Office 2000 (and proably XP). I just did it yesterday. While in most cases with network installations, only one instance of MS Office can be run and any time (although no one does and it's hard to catch people in the act)
posted by lsd4all at 12:25 PM on July 24, 2003

What if Netflix rented music?
posted by mecran01 at 12:35 PM on July 24, 2003

What if Netflix rented music?

If NetFlix rented music CDs then they would quickly become no more than a MP3 delivery mechanism with fairly low bandwidth. In other words, lets say I want the new Blue Rider Group CD. I recieve it via Netflix, when it comes up in the queue, and as soon as I get it I just rip it to MP3.

I send the CD back the next day, and I never have to put it in the queue again. I've just paid something like $1 for a CD (assuming $20 per month, 3 CDs out at a time, yadda yadda).

The only reason this isn't happening with movies is that storage is still a little too expensive. Once everyone has 100 terabyte hard drives in their laptops and is able to carry hundreds of movies on their hard drive this will all change and NetFlix will probably be legislated right out of business.

Either that or NetFlix will be so large that they'll buy the movie studios and own the whole production chain.
posted by bshort at 12:48 PM on July 24, 2003

With regards NetFlix its not so difficult to rip the DVD and then burn a copy onto a DVD-R, no 100 terabyte drive required.
posted by zeoslap at 1:05 PM on July 24, 2003

Two things...

a) bshort's mention of netflix is very interesting. why not just distribute CDs the netflix way, or from the record store? doesn't the rental store agreement state that they are temporarily transferring ownership to you, and that if you lose the movie, you're responsible for the replacement cost? if renting movies is legal, shouldn't renting CDs be legal too?

b) clevershark: Technically, you could set up the servers so that one recording may only be accessed by one user at any given time, which would not qualify as simultaneous use.
Is a recording is defined by tracks? Perhaps you could even set up the servers so that one second, or millisecond of a song is being listened to by one person at one time.
posted by VulcanMike at 1:11 PM on July 24, 2003

Not legal. The whole thing hinges on the concept of fair use. The author says this straight up, then carefully forgets it. The first test court case will toss this out very quickly.

Fair use law may not exclude this explicitly. But why the hell would it? It's a crackpot end run around the letter of the law. And it wouldn't hold up in court for more the 90 seconds.

Snapster: "Fair use allows mass distribution of copyrighted material within a corporation."

Judge: "No. It doesn't. Get out."
posted by y6y6y6 at 1:23 PM on July 24, 2003

This is a clever idea and not without merit, but the fact remains it hinges on whether or not fair use includes distribution of copyrighted material amongst the owners of a corporation.

Though untested, I can't see this surviving the first challenge.

On preview, what y6y6y6 said.
posted by cedar at 1:36 PM on July 24, 2003

OFFTOPIC response to bshort/VulcnaMike:
They've been renting CDs in stores in Japan for years. They even sell Mini-discs at the checkout so you can rent your cd, copy it to MD and then return it. Obviously, mp3/aac, etc negate the need for MD, and the internet pretty much negates the need to "physically" rent cds. But, what is interesting is that the record companies didn't do anything about the kids renting and copying CDs. At least, not that I know of.
posted by shoepal at 1:42 PM on July 24, 2003

Perhaps you could even set up the servers so that one second, or millisecond of a song is being listened to by one person at one time.

Now this sounds like it has potential, if you roll it into a file-sharing mechanism--you'd technically be lending out music to your "friends" and you'd be incapable of listening to the same second of music that someone else is listening to at the same time. Latency would seem to be the biggest problem, but I say that as a programmer and not a lawyer. Can someone poke some legal holes in this idea?
posted by turaho at 1:46 PM on July 24, 2003

Now this sounds like it has potential, if you roll it into a file-sharing mechanism--you'd technically be lending out music to your "friends" and you'd be incapable of listening to the same second of music that someone else is listening to at the same time. Latency would seem to be the biggest problem, but I say that as a programmer and not a lawyer. Can someone poke some legal holes in this idea?

If the perception to the end user is that multiple people can listen to the same CD at the same time, and this is in violation of copyright law, then the judge is going to rule that that's what the system is doing.

Even if there's some sort of technical loophole in the backend like no one is actually listening to the same bits as anyone else, most judges won't care.
posted by bshort at 1:52 PM on July 24, 2003

Not legal. What is the company doing here? Purchasing a CD and selling copies to its customers. Calling them "shareholders" doesn't change the fact that this is simply a disguised sale. To demonstrate, imagine that instead of file-sharing, this hypothetical company was just burning CD-Rs of all the CDs it buys and shipping them to its "shareholders." No court will engage in the sophistry necessary to draw a distinction.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 2:05 PM on July 24, 2003

bshort: Wow, is there any precedent for an act that isn't technically illegal in and of itself being ruled illegal because it appears to break a law?
posted by turaho at 2:09 PM on July 24, 2003

Slightly off topic:

...partnership (like an LLC), of course that might open the "owners" up to litigation.

LLC stands for Limited Liability Corporation (substitute Partnership for LLP). That means the partners are specifically limited in their liability for what the corporation does. A limited liability corporate structure would actually protect the partners from litigation, however they're much more difficult (and therefore more expensive) to set up, especially on a massive scale. LLCs/LLPs usually consist of only a few partners, such as a law firm or medical practice. Or movie company.
posted by me3dia at 2:22 PM on July 24, 2003

I am not even slightly qualified to comment on the legal or business prospects of this proposal, but one thing he wrote that I've thought all along: the record companies make an enormous profit simply for marketing someone else's product. I agree wholeheartedly that the artists need to be at the profit center of whatever business model evolves out of the current mess. Media companies across the board do this, in fact. Publishing is probably even worse than the music industry, simply because the model is so deeply entrenched.

When record companies acknowledge that all they really have to offer is marketing, or when some other entrepreneur starts a tailored marketing service for emerging artists, then the industry will start to reflect market realities.

I for one would be happy to pay almost any decent musical artist fifty cents for the right to listen to a song whenever I want (and put it on my mixes, which I agree not to sell), assuming ten cents goes to whoever brought the song to my attention in the first place.

But then, I've always been really naive about these things.
posted by divrsional at 2:27 PM on July 24, 2003

(On topic this time:)

This seems like an amalgam of Napster and what MP3.com did a few years back: online storage of CDs. RIAA was able to nip both of those in the bud, so I don't see how this would manage to pass legal muster where those did not.
posted by me3dia at 2:29 PM on July 24, 2003

Wow, is there any precedent for an act that isn't technically illegal in and of itself being ruled illegal because it appears to break a law?

The difference here is between the way something works at a technical level and the way something works at a social level.

In this case we're discussing a box that sends off a single bit from a single file, but doesn't send the same bit to two people at the same time, thereby supposedly skirting around copyright law because only one person is in possession of the bit at an instant in time.

Ok, first off, you'd have to have some sort of mechanism that would allow users to "check out" bits.

Second, all the people getting their special, unique bits are all accessing the same file. Sure they're accessing different parts of it, but you can bet the judge isn't going to view it this way, and he'd be right. He's going to say that all the users are accessing the same file, and, to do this, they're all receiving copies of the file.

And yes, the copies are digital, but the situation is no different than if you were to take a book and tear out all the pages. Then, make one copy of each page, and send out that copy to N different users. Then, when the user sends you back the copy, you send them a copy of the next page in sequence.

So how is that copyright infringement? Well, you're making at least one full copy of the book, and in doing so you're violating copyright.

Also, its very possible that you would be in infringing on the performance rights of the artist, which is separate (I believe) from the distribution rights. For instance, just because you buy a copy of a CD doesn't give you the right to play it on the radio. There is a different licensing scheme for that.

What I'm really getting at here, is that looking at the act of sending individual bits one way, yes, you're technically getting around the law, but looking at it another way you're disseminating multiple copies to multiple people, and pretending that just because you have "the original" file that you're not breaking any laws.

And, unless your lawyers are absolutely godlike, you would lose lose lose in a court case.
posted by bshort at 2:32 PM on July 24, 2003

turaho:
bshort: Wow, is there any precedent for an act that isn't technically illegal in and of itself being ruled illegal because it appears to break a law?

yes, the various successful and unsuccessful prosecutions leading up to the No Electronic Theft Act of 1996 and ultimately the successful prosecution of Ralph LaMacchia were pretty much exactly that.

software companies wanted to go after people who "collected" software or key-codes or other similar hacks and cracks for fun, not for use or profit. they found they couldn't often do it because the section of the USCode they were trying to prosecute under had financial gain provisions, but enough judges felt like the intentional possession of unlicensed copies of software, despite the lack of financial motive, was sufficiently close to what the law was intended to prevent that some prosecutions were successful. it didn't quite quack like a duck, but it looked, smelled and sure as hell swam like one.

congress eventually did away with the uncertainty,by stripping the minimum monetary thresholds from that part of the US code.

oh, and what y6y6y6 said, in spades.
posted by crush-onastick at 2:34 PM on July 24, 2003

There are clearly gray areas of legality. At the driven-snow white end of the scale that would most please the RIAA, you buy a CD and only listen to it through headphones, lest anyone catch an unlicensed snatch of tunes. At the black end is Chinese-style mass-production CD piracy.

Here are some intermediate stages to edge up to what RXC proposes.

1. Ten friends pool their cash and buy 10 CDs. Each takes one home. Mr RIAA says "OK."

2. Same as 1, but the friends make one copy of each CD; they put the originals in a safe-deposit box and each friend takes home one duplicate. Mr RIAA grinds his teeth but says "OK."

3. Same as 2, but this time they make mix CDs, each mix CD having tracks from all the originals, but with no track copied more than once. Let's assume for the sake of argument that each original CD has 10 tracks, and each mix CD has 10. Mr RIAA grinds his teeth and rolls his eyes a lot, but says "OK" (I think).

4. Same as 3, but this time, some tracks get copied multiple times and some don't get copied at all. Still, there are only 10x10 copied tracks floating around. This is where we start getting into darker shades of gray.

5. Same as 4, but this time there are definitely more than 10x10 copied tracks floating around. This is a dark shade of gray.
posted by adamrice at 2:42 PM on July 24, 2003

the record industry is doomed. Musicians who want work are going to have start viewing their recordings as enticements to get people to see their shows. This, after all, is what musicians presumably do, play music for people. Perhaps the unintended consequence of the internet will be the death of the rock star. Good riddance, I say. In the new world, musicians put their music on the web, pray someone downloads it and likes it enough to come see their show. Shows will get better, and more frequent, recorded music will be free and plentiful. Why the long face?
posted by pejamo at 2:55 PM on July 24, 2003

Fair use is a case-by-case balancing act; the four Congressionally-mandated factors for a court to consider are:

• the purpose and character of the use, including
whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
• the nature of the copyrighted work;
• the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
• the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

All four of these factors would weigh in against Snapster. Pace Cringely, a court would have no trouble at all saying that the "home use" exceptions deal with where the recording is made and used, and don't apply in the corporate context. Snapster wouldn't even be legal if it had two owners who split the music. It would be enjoined out of existence within a week of being announced.
posted by grimmelm at 3:08 PM on July 24, 2003

pejamo: recorded music will be free and plentiful

It might be free, but it would be much less plentiful, and it probably wouldn't be very good. Under your model of touring touring touring, very few artists could afford the kind of studio tech required to make a record sound decent (let alone spare the time to record it) -- lo-fi is cute for a while, but only with certain styles of music and artists. You wouldn't like Timbaland or the Neptunes on a four-track. And musicians don't necessarily "play music for people" -- they just make music; they don't have to be able to do it live. Would you give up another "Good Vibrations?" Because without serious technology and money, there's no way you could spontaneously create a song like that in live performance... (This is just an example. It's OK to hate the Beach Boys.)

And this thread has definitely convinced me that there's no way this idea could fly legally. Thanks for doing the homework, MeFi folks.
posted by logovisual at 3:33 PM on July 24, 2003

Musicians who want work are going to have start viewing their recordings as enticements to get people to see their shows.

This will work great for orchestras, which lose money like crazy as it is. Or for laptop musicians. We all know how exciting their live shows are.

Think of who owns the concert venues and makes the most money from ticket sales. Why do you think Clear Channel and Ticketmaster are any better than the RIAA?

If you want to see an example of a place where the music industry is non-existent due to prolific bootlegging, check out China. There's no burgeoning concert scene as a result.

Finally, why is everyone in such a hurry to put independent music sellers out of business? I like being able to walk into a little store, talk to the owner about what's good this week, and buy a physical CD or record. I'll take something tangible with cover art and liner notes over a muddy-sounding computer file any day.
posted by hyperizer at 3:48 PM on July 24, 2003

Ah-ha. After reading the comments here, I think I have a permutation that would make this little venture work. The initial investors would have to be the people who owned the copyright of the music (or at least the rights to distribute the music online). So, some artists who have a lot of pull with other artists (enough to get 50 thousand albums listed) could start this venture and quickly up their market share just as the original article suggests could happen. The big difference would be instead of selling shares of stock in the venture, you would be selling memberships. This would work something like a pyramid scheme, the more people who join behind you in the chain the more money you and the artists you support make, but since the product is the available music, I think it would pass the legal muster to not actually be a pyramid scheme.

As other artists see how successful this is, more music would be made available as more of the original shares in the company are sold. Indie bands could gain success by selling memberships in the music library to their fans. Reaping the profits as those fans sell shares to new fans.

This would first put an end run on the Apple Tunes venture and others like it, but eventually would remove the need for the big labels as well as artists fail to renew their contracts and move to the music library method.
posted by IndigoSkye at 4:40 PM on July 24, 2003

Interestingly, $33 billion represents approximately the total market capitalization of all the major record companies, which we'd have to expect would be driven down by the success of Snapster.

Um, for starters there is not a single publicly traded major record company in existence these days. All of them are owned by one of the big media conglomerates. So WTF does he mean by market capitalization.

Then, as others here have mentioned, where does the new music come from with no more profit incentive to create it? And why should the members pay 50 cents per album for downloading since that would far exceed the cost of the service.
posted by billsaysthis at 5:03 PM on July 24, 2003

Forget Snapster. What about RobbinHoodSter. (1) Take the same 1,000,000 CD's (as Snapster) or better, even more albums. (2) Go to an offshore haven that is not a signatory to universal copyright. (3) Sell all songs for 20 cents a track, $2.00 an album. (4) Send 65% of the money directly to the artist or artist's management. If the artist can not be found, hold the money is escrow for said artist. (5) Give 5% of the the revenue towards grants for working musicians (sort of a RobinHoodSter N.E.A. program.) (6) Give 5% of the money to better the life and infrastructure of offshore haven. (7) Earn enough with the 25% margin to cover fixed costs, and to grease the local govt to insure that global pressures to close RobinHoodSter are laughed at.
posted by limitedpie at 5:48 PM on July 24, 2003

I've got it! We create a company, and as IndigoSkye suggested, we hold not the physical copies of the CD, but the copyright to the music itself. The shareholders would purchase a physical copy of the albums, which under traditional fair use doctrine, they could duplicate for their personal use. The company would only charge enough to cover the artists' production costs plus reasonable profit, distribution and advertising costs, and a reasonable profit for the managers of the corporation. That would work, right?

Oh, wait ...
posted by monju_bosatsu at 6:13 PM on July 24, 2003

bshort: The only reason this isn't happening with movies is that storage is still a little too expensive. Once everyone has 100 terabyte hard drives in their laptops and is able to carry hundreds of movies on their hard drive this will all change ...

I think it could happen today, without 100TB drives.

A 300GB drive costs $240, or $0.80/GB. If movies average, say, 3GB each, then you could hold 100 movies -- a perfectly respectable home movie collection -- at an average storage cost of $2.40/movie, plus perhaps $1/movie in Netflix fees. Compare buying a new DVD at $15-20/movie.

So it makes some sense even today. But I agree, at the rate the cost of storage is dropping, soon it will be trivial to do this, and may become widespread.
posted by Hieronymous Coward at 1:20 AM on July 25, 2003

Oh, one more thing as a reality check: 100TB of storage could hold 33,000 movies, or 8 years of nonstop movies.

I couldn't handle that. :)

As near as I can guesstimate, the mighty IMDB lists 300,000 movies in existence. So a 100TB drive would hold one-tenth of all the movies ever made. (And the rental fees would be 30X the cost of your computer.)

So... You don't need or even want to wait for 100TB drives; you could start ripping rented movies today and it'd make some technical and economic sense.
posted by Hieronymous Coward at 1:31 AM on July 25, 2003

Here's an idea: get 10 friends together, and each donate one good cd to the local library each month. Use a queue so you only donate what you consider to be good stuff. Perfectly legal, and you're sharing the music with a lot of people, and for once the local library will have music that isn't completely lame.
posted by mecran01 at 12:18 PM on July 25, 2003

Probably no one is reading this thread anymore, but Cringely has come up with an update, which acknowledges the flaws in his first proposal and offers an improved version.
posted by tdismukes at 5:43 AM on August 1, 2003