Entrepreneurs Plan To Legalize and Monetize Illegal Music | Hacker News Reader

Entrepreneurs Plan To Legalize and Monetize Illegal Music

torrentfreak.com

20 pointsUncle_Sam13 comments

So the software identifies the song being played, reports the song back to a master server to determine the rightful owner, then displays an advertisement from which the revenue is shared with the copyright owner?

Why would any pirate even consider using this player when everyone already has ad-free options available? Also, anyone who uses this player or plug-in is handing the record companies a list of their music files and how often they listen to them. Even worse, this is all done under the pretense that the end-user hasn't actually purchased the music files.

Either this is business plan is missing some important element, or I'm missing something.

I think the idea is to make it so you don't have a choice.

To force every player out there to do this?

How would it know when you own the CD and have ripped it yourself?

I guess you could always just detach it from the network.

it is probably more interesting to ask how one forces severy player to implement this. By making players without this "feature" somehow illegal? Illegal to sell or distribute? Illegal to make? How one would enforce that. Also obtaining content by legally questionable means is essentialy same thing as using "illegal" player. Also it seems to me that it is easier to go after file sharers (there is somebody whose rights are violated) than after users/distributors/makers of some software (who exactly is victim of that?).

Isn't the name for that “DRM”?

Probably won't work.

The only way to make this work is remove the incentive. If I could sell "used" mp3's back to iTunes, for example, I'd be less inclined to share them with the world for free.

So a filesharing system that tracks what users upload and download, and lets users auction off "used" media an equivalent number of times gets the users on the same side as the music companies.

Now you have the idea, go make millions :-) If you do, however, I'd appreciate if you buy me a house in St. Thomas.

That would not put you on the same side. They would say that's exactly the same thing as the illegal file-sharing it's meant to be an alternative to.

"On the same side" in the sense that I'd be opposed to file-sharing as it cheapens the value of the thing I own, not in the sense that I'm golfing with Warner Bros. executives every Tuesday.

Sounds a lot like YouTube's opt-in solution, where copyright owners can submit a database of material to ID, and when it's identified, have it labeled as theirs and have ads slapped on it (http://www.google.com/support/youtube/bin/answer.py?answer=8...).

You can't make this work unless you control the distribution channel (like Youtube). These guys have no shot in hell unless they get someone like Apple to sign on (which is a non-starter).

Where's the incentive to use the new adware-laden player that reports back to the RIAA? I think I'll just stick with what I'm using now, thanks.

Strikes me as a marketing spin on an old idea rather than an innovative new product. They've figured out a way to make playing 'pirated' music palatable to the studios (maybe). Good luck to them.

Similar to Vevo on youtube..

Reply on news.ycombinator.com