Legal p2p?

December 2, 2004 5:18 AM

Three major record labels have inked deals with Peer Impact, a (still-in-beta) "legal p2p service"...this news on the heels of Shawn Fanning's "Snocap plan which involves identifying music files being traded through file-swapping networks and then attaching a price tag to them..." [+]
posted by tpl1212 (7 comments total)

My take? I think the Snocap idea sounds interesting as it (allegedly) uses existing file-sharing networks. As for the Peer Impact model, i think I agree with the Jupiter Research analyst mentioned in the BetaNews article: "If file traders are looking for free stuff, what incentive would they have to pay for it? And if they're going to pay, why wouldn't they go to an established store, like iTunes, MSN, MusicMatch or Napster?"

(though, on reading that quote, I guess it could very well be applied to "Snocapped" files on, say, Kazaaa)
posted by tpl1212 at 5:22 AM on December 2, 2004

Man, after recording, radio, home taping, cd burning and p2p file trading absolutely destroyed the music industry, I hope something comes along to save it. The road from my house to work is littered with the shattered souls of major label recording artists.
posted by jon_kill at 5:26 AM on December 2, 2004

You know, just last night I was thinking "How can I donate my hard drive and miniscule upstream bandwidth to the RIAA?" Thank you Peer Impact!
posted by revgeorge at 5:50 AM on December 2, 2004

I wonder what the peer impact patent is... how does one go about finding that kind of stuff? (maybe i should ask.metafilter.com?)
posted by bluno at 7:20 AM on December 2, 2004

I would only pay for a p2p that guaranteed all money went to the artists, nothing to the CEOs.
posted by Peter H at 10:24 AM on December 2, 2004

I'd pay for a p2p that gave me music in MP3 or OGG. Pay for copy protected bundles of bits I then have to ask your servers permission to do anything with? I don't think so, chum.

But anyway. If I'm paying, surely the company I'm buying from can afford the bandwidth to let me download direct? Having to share my upload bandwidth to make money for someone else just seems odd.

I don't see what P2P has to offer in the realm of paid-for downloads; seems more like VCs hearing the buzzwords 'iTunes' and 'file-sharing' then jumping on bandwagons.
posted by BobInce at 12:21 PM on December 2, 2004

Ooh, Shawn Fanning's back with a legitimate business model that's going to completely and utterly fail. Alright! Score another $50 million in angel investment capital! Wooot! Shawn's packing the bowls tonight, boys!

I'm with Peter H, fuck the CEOs, fuck the dinks who do nothing but push numbers around on paper and decide to invent the next Justin or Kelly or whoever. Let me pay the artists directly and I'll be happy, they'll be happy and I'll be able to do whatever I want with my damned music.

What if the book industry were behaving like the RIAA or restaurants? They are so antiquated and without a clue that I'd laugh at them if I didn't think they'd sue me for defamation of character.
posted by fenriq at 4:42 PM on December 2, 2004