TorrentFreak

The place where breaking news, BitTorrent and copyright collide

Legal P2P Music Service Doomed to Fail

If you can’t beat pirates, join them. This is Playlouder’s philosophy, a music download service that allows subscribers to download music from BitTorrent and other filesharing networks, while reimbursing the copyright owners. The concept sure is interesting, but the current setup is naive, flawed and doomed to fail.

Reports about the new and upcoming legal P2P service “Playlouder” are all over the news – again. Just like three years ago, Playlouder co-founder Paul Sanders manages to generate buzz for his legalized filesharing service. “We are confident that we will have something quite good to announce in the next couple of months,” he said, claiming that his company made a deal with one of the top ISPs in the UK.

The idea is simple; Playlouder plans to offer subscribers of one of the larger ISPs in the UK a service that will allow them to pirate as much music as they want, for a flat fee. Customers will be allowed to use the BitTorrent sites and filesharing applications they are used to. Through Deep Packet Inspection, Playlouder will check what tracks you download, so they can pay the rights holder accordingly.

The idea of creating a service where users can use BitTorrent sites without having to worry about legal repercussions is interesting. However, despite 5 years of development, the Playlouder team is overlooking some of the most basic features of file-sharing, which will render the service useless. Playlouder will allow its subscribers to download content from BitTorrent, but they won’t allow them to share the files with others who do not use the service. This restriction is needed because they want to prevent copyright infringement, but it causes a few problems too.

Thou shalt share

The number one rule for BitTorrent users is: Share. If you don’t share – upload files to others – your download speeds will reduce dramatically. This means that it could take hours instead of minutes to download an album from your favorite BitTorrent site. What Playlouder will offer is a highly degraded version of BitTorrent, and subscribers will not be able to get the great download speeds they are so accustomed to.

BitTorrent Abusers

Torrent sites are not too fond of people who aim to abuse the system. It wouldn’t surprise me if most trackers ban Playlouder customers from accessing the service, as they will seriously hurt the download speed of the swarm, and thus the average downloader. What they’re technically offering is a Freeleech service, one which doesn’t share back to the community. Together with the decreased download speeds, this means that Playlouder users will not get to enjoy the BitTorrent experience that everyone else gets. In fact, it will be almost impossible for them to download anything from BitTorrent.

Encryption

Another issue, not so much related to the user experience, is that Playlouder will not be able to track what people are downloading when they enable protocol header encryption. A significant number of BitTorrent users are using encryption to prevent ISPs from throttling their traffic, but since encryption obfuscates the protocol headers, Playlouder can’t track what their users are downloading. This then means that artists and labels will not be fully compensated for the tracks these users download.

Let us be clear, we do encourage the search for new business models here at TorrentFreak, where ideally, both artists and consumers benefit. However, in its current form the Playlouder service is not going to be a great success, if it is more than just another “vaporshare” service in the first place.

Related Posts

Previous Post | Next Post

  • Vince

    “If you don’t share – upload files to others – your download speeds will reduce dramatically.”

    Duh, no. Not really.

  • waffles54

    It will be in the year 3000 when public trackers finally fix their speed

  • Anonymous

    How will they handle derivative works? After all, perhaps some random person might come up with some remix. How might that be “compensated”?

  • asdfgr

    @1 Ehrm..yes. You might want to read a bit about the tit-for-tat algorithm that is the basis of bittorrent. In essence if you share with people, people will share with you, if you don’t share stuff, people won’t share anything with you. Of course this is limited to a single swarm but still, and in swarm where there are more seeders than peers you won’t notice it.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tit_for_tat

  • WAT

    You don’t to uploading any KBs at all to still be able to rinse other people’s bandwidth.

    Go to a site like ScT, find a well seeded torrent, and watch it max your connection before you’ve managed to upload a single MB back to it.

    That’s what #1 is getting at.

  • Anonymous

    Something like this is a great idea, if it was executed well. I think it could without a doubt catch on and become popular among the masses… If it was executed well. I do understand not being able to share with people who don’t use the service, but I think they should try hard to get many people to use it so there are people to share to. If it was just leeching it would be terrible.

    Here’s an idea. What if they made a tracker where only people signed up to this could participate in. Everyone can upload all of the music they want to it. It would basically be a way to make sure that there are people to share to, to make it easier to find someone else using the service that can be shared to.

  • iiNZNZN!!

    Epic failure

  • hmmm

    If we agree that the whole download thing is supporting the “try before you buy” logic, paying for digital content is completely stupid.

    I download lots of music, buy lots of cds, but I will never give a cent to buy digital music.

  • Izkata

    @4: Actually, it’s true. Despite how it was designed, it’s still easy to download an entire torrent just as quickly, while uploading next to nothing. I often complete my torrents with a share ratio of something like 0.050 – and since I download almost only TV shows, yeah, there tend to be very few seeds.

  • yeaah

    #1 is a total moron. Quit wasting my air.

    I really like how there trying to come up with a new solution.. but this one really is just not gonna work.

    Good try tho guys.

  • J

    I’m not sure I understand the criticism on the sharing aspect.

    “Playlouder will allow its subscribers to download content from BitTorrent, but they won’t allow them to share the files with others who do not use the service.”

    Isn’t this like a private tracker? They work fine with only sharing with others inside the tracker, excluding those not signed up. So how will the Playlouder system limit sharing more than any private tracker?

  • Anonymous

    They’re getting closer to offering what we want. Just drop the DPI and allow the user to report what they downloaded themselves

  • mustangx

    This might better be accomplished through a specialized client, though it would defeat their intentions of people being able to use a client they are comfortable with. It’s always good to see people using their imagination though.I give them an E for effort

  • Anonymous

    Its not P2P at all. They are going to need a special download manager not a bit torrent client.

  • pink panther

    Fail – because it pays the “rights holders” not the creators. If you wanted to make the “rights holders” rich you could just buy CDs. If it paid the creators, now, that would be different…

  • Anonymous

    Yeah… Drop the DPI, and just stick to the torrent name… That usually encompasses at least the artist and album name…

  • yep

    i could give a shit about the ‘rights holders’. The only person im supporting is the artist. After all.. wtf did the ‘rights holders’ do for me? I downloaded it.. so why would I give them any money?

    Go fuck yourselves, you monopoly is over.

  • Anonymous

    “Fail – because it pays the “rights holders” not the creators. If you wanted to make the “rights holders” rich you could just buy CDs. If it paid the creators, now, that would be different…”

    Good point.

    This should pay the people who made the music; the artists, people who worked at the studio, etc. Not some capitalist who thinks it is fine to make money from someone else’s work.

  • Vince

    @ #11 : read #9 and shut the fudge up.

  • Anonymous

    #1 is sort of right. Share ratios don’t necessarily affect dl speeds.

  • Delaware

    @#1

    What sort of dumbfcuk are you? Oh ok, you are a kazaa user!

  • Anonymous

    @1: On a private tracker, you will probably get kicked if you don’t share as much as you upload.

    On a public tracker:

    If people in general don’t share/upload as much as they download, everyone will face slower speeds b/c there is not enough bandwidth in the swarm of people.

    If a couple of people restrict uploading speeds, if at all, it isn’t a big deal and will probably not affect you on public tracker. But, if more and more people start doing it, it affects everyone and BT will get slower and slower! That is what the article is trying to say…. everyone needs to share/upload so that everyone can enjoy fast speeds. It’s a community effort.

  • monster_mack

    Leeching off public trackers, and then paying for it?
    What if the mp3s are low quality?

    In my opinion, this system sounds idiotic. They might as well make their own tracker, fools.

  • Vince

    @ #21 : Lawl, i’ve been using bitorrent everyday since over 3 years.

  • Anonymous

    What is “download” anyways? It is more important to upload. For example, does it give a license to put copyrighted works on one’s own website? It should give that right as well, as well as the right to distribute hard copies of it. I mean, to limit such things to the internet is way too narrow.

  • Anonymous

    It gives a license to download, but it is more important to give a license to upload. P2P is less about “getting stuff” as it is about “sharing stuff.”

  • kaushal

    i wont pay for music..
    wat may come
    http://above-life.blogspot.com

  • Jim Beasmk

    LOL, Of course it will fail, no one is going to pay for music they can get for free elsewhere. I mean think about it.

    RB
    http://www.anondo.alturl.com

  • michael

    I think this is a really good idea, especially since there is no all-you-can-eat services for mac/linux, and it says itll work (so i’m thinking drm-free?). As for the speeds, on a private tracker I can download at 1 MB/sec without ever uploading anything, they could just make it like that. I think the artists will see some sort of compensation (probably similar or the same as if the songs were downloaded from iTunes/amazonmp3/any other legit music store). Expecting the artists to get every single cent of an MP3 is ridiculous, since there are many costs involved such as bandwidth and recording costs (for the album) – which are picked up by the record label. I hope something like this will turn things around, because the current direction will ruin the music industry (even more).

    Just my $.02

  • lies, damn lies and the BPI

    Won’t work, period. For a start, legitimate music will be music they are allowed to distribute by agreement with recording labels. Playlouder has but 2 such agreements. That means that only rights holder from within that pool of music and who are associated with those labels will get paid if and when someone downloads music from that pool. What I do not understand is where music not under license comes in. Surely if they have no agreement with the rights holders of music in the p2p community outside of that pool, that is infringement, becuase they have not been granted any right by the rights holders to make their music available.

    Second. Is this in any way different to the once great now bastardised Bearshare gnutella client? I dont think this has anything to do with bittorrent at all. I think music will be sourced via the gnutella and/or edonkey network, not bittorrent, just like iMesh/Bearshare does. There is more than enough music on those networks to sustain a service such as this, and they are more than a match for bittorrent as far as diversity goes. You are more likely to find exactly what you want with peers on emule, especialy if its only one track you’re after. I don’t think bittorrent has anything to worry about, as its not at all suited to this type of setup, where gnutella and emule are and have been used in exactly this scenario for a few years alreay thanks to the RIAA running people out of business.

    If you want to see how this has worked in practice, look into the history of the Bearshare client, then tell me it aint exactly what’s going on here.

  • Anonymous

    “Expecting the artists to get every single cent of an MP3 is ridiculous, since there are many costs involved such as bandwidth and recording costs (for the album) – which are picked up by the record label.”

    I just want to pay the people that did the real work: the artists, people working at the studio, the people who mastered the music… Well, not the last ones. At least not if they are the people who are killing the dynamic range of music and introducing clipping so it can sound louder in comparison. Well, I guess they were told to do it by their bosses… They probably know how stupid it is.

    The point, besides that the loudness race is terrible, is that when I spend my money on music, movies, software, etc, I want to reward the people who spent their time to make it, not some person in a suit somewhere who thinks it is their right to make as much profit as they want.

  • what if

    I can see it now.
    The artists that have mediasentry tracking them. One of these flunkies getting trapped by them.
    (Oh but I paid for it ).

  • Anon of course

    @6: That’s not such a bad idea. They would have to have their own torrent creation program to give to customers, they’d have to be private torrent files, but they would know exactly what is on their tracker and what sort of traffic everything is getting. It seems like it’s a good possibility. Sounds better than deep packet sniffing which just sounds like a bad idea to begin with.

  • Anonymous

    @28: I don’t think that’s 100% true. There are people who download music because it’s convenient and delivered how they want, and there are people who are too cheap to pay or what have you. If a company is offering a legal alternative for the people that just want it how they want it, MANY people will pay for it, guaranteeing safety but still giving you what you want.

  • Anonymous

    Problem I see with this is all the deep packet sniffing… won’t they start turning people over to the govt when they see xyz being downloaded to customer zyx? Sounds like trouble to me…

  • ApacheChief

    Why didn’t they just setup a private tracker and charge based on what torrent you download?

    That’s so much easier, niggers.

  • Quasimodo

    This could be so easy, if those label execs werent so pig headed.

    Just openly join all the trackers, forums and websites you are already in with your undercover “agents”, publish your own high quality releases, have open minded conversations with the users on those sites, put donation buttons on every release page and watch the money pouring in.

    But as i said, those people are simply narrow minded.

  • Anonymous

    Don’t try this on What.cd

  • nevermore

    I haven’t read any comments so I’m sorry if I repeat anything anyone else already said.

    I just think these guys have the right idea, if they can convince record labels that uploading is ok, I’d sign up for this. I’m planning to move to the states in a couple of years and I don’t want the frigging RIAA on my ass for downloading a couple of tracks (while I usually end up buying the cd’s but whatever I’m sure most people don’t anymore)

    If uploading was ok, the general principle could be that the ones who don’t choose to pay run the risk of getting caught, as is the case with any crime (although prices record labels put on cds is a bigger crime in my humble opinion) while the ones who up- AND download weren’t doing anything wrong …

  • ahum

    @ Vince

    You say youve been using it for over 3 years yet you still dont know how it works.

    Just because you were able to download at ULTRA FAST SPEEDS!1!! from one torrent doesn’t mean anything. Trackers give priority to uploaders, not leechers.

    It really doesnt matter anyway, your a complete piece of shit for not uploading anything. Someone was kind enough to upload to you, so your going to be a douche nozzle and not give anything back. Your a leecher, you dont deserve to use P2P, please send me your IP so I can ban you from my client.

    Fuck You.

  • 777

    [DISCLAIMER: LONG][+lazy]
    @3- ‘men. “How will they handle derivative works?”[+1]

    Plus, downloading =/= liking. And in this system there is still not really a way of showing appreciation- say unknown poor-as-shit band {A} you find fantastic, would get the same as that famous rich pop artist of whom you’re just looking for 1 track from the torrent, but don’t know the name, to take a small sample from; to remix.

    B’sides, i’m still not ‘over’ the idea of musicians being able to make more than a months labour making stuff they love; but still, you could call that work. Think there should be a whole lot less industry behind it.
    possible hypocrit btw.

    oh!@6- that would be something!! legal oink. right.
    probably [since corporate] less love in it; thus [if] modded from a diff pov.

    @12: “Just drop the DPI and allow the user to report what they downloaded themselves”+1

    15 by pink panther: hehe, d0h!

    all in all i’m gonna stop here; the whole system could still be topled by perhaps a client [new o/s?] that is a media player, rater, organiser, downloader, cashpayer, releaser? [all have to be perfect and partly community supported, perhaps iphone like]
    yes~ need sleep/other worldly vital activities atm

    [nvm..]
    @25 “to limit such things to the internet is way too narrow” =]
    @26 “it is about “sharing stuff.”" +1
    @29 michael: c’mon. really. there’s a way different change needed than itunes compensation strategy.
    @31: +1 pay proper people yes ofcourse
    @37 quasimode: ntb..

    #ps, i don’t think the income should really depend on the amount of downloads..
    ’cause even now there’s the huge hollywood produced pile with people too rich for any good; how about a min/max wage line for anyone anywhere doing anything… meh.
    Meaning still if no one listens/downloads no cash, but when superduperpopular perhaps stIll not get more than f.i. E10000 a month: which would already be a lot.
    my2.

    [@40 ahem: chill. the point stays that [at times?] you can finish downloading torrents before you’ve uploaded even 1%. doesn’t mean you have to stop sharing once you have it though.

    be good, people; i’m off.

  • angry.squirrel

    hahhahhahah, oh please, this is absolutely the most idiotic thing ive heard this weak, i give em three months before they end up just like any other similiar service…dead

  • Anonymous

    @5

    Then there is no need for seeding, the point is that when you are fighting with other peers for downloading fastest, you WILL get more if you seed more! :)

    You don’t need to seed a lot to see a big difference in downloadingspeed sometimes.

  • ArtyTorrent

    I can’t see this being much of a success, although the philosophy is kind of a step in the right direction.

    Ignoring the debate about how the technology will work, the two philosophical problems with this model are:

    1. Rights owners are record companies which I don’t wish to support.

    2. If Playlouder is taking a cut, that means an even smaller proportion of the money goes to the artists. We need to cut out the middleman, not add yet another one.

  • Gav

    A much better idea would be to set up a tracker, have music companies upload high quality copies of their tracks to it (only music companies, nobody else), and allow access to it for say £10/month. Also, have adverts on this tracker, allowing more revenue for them.

    We can dream, can’t we?

  • BTGuard - BitTorrent Anonymously

NewsBits

Even more news...

  • The Pirate Bay Isn’t Down Completely, Just Having a Few Issues

    Twitter and Facebook, not to mention the TorrentFreak inbox, are currently alive with complaints that The...

  • Pirate Bay Founder Gottfrid Svartholm on Freedom of Speech

    Freedom of speech is a highly valued commodity, but should people be allowed to say whatever...

  • Blu-ray Anti-Piracy Tech Stops Discs and Promotes Purchases

    An anti-piracy system present in all official Blu-ray players since 2012 has received a fresh update...

  • Foxtel Breeds Pirates by Locking Up Game of Thrones

    One of the main reasons why people turn to piracy is the lack of legal alternatives....

  • UK Student Admits Breaching Sony Copyrights With Leak of PS3 SDK

    Last year an Internet user known as El Nomeo leaked version 3.70 of Sony’s Playstation3 SDK...

MostDiscussed

Below are TorrentFreak's most discussed articles of the past month. Join the discussion if you like.

CopyQuote

Left Quote

“The Pirate Bay has been one of the most important movements in Sweden for freedom of speech, working against corruption and censorship.

Peter Sunde Left Quote

PopularArticles

A selection of some TorrentFreak's classics dug up from our archives.