We can dream, can’t we?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 …

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.

That’s so much easier, niggers.

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.

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.

Just my $.02

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

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

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.

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

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.

Go fuck yourselves, you monopoly is over.

“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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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

Duh, no. Not really.