no doubt there will be a catch as in some poor sap will fall for it hook, line & sinker!

now, to the hospital i go ha ha ha ha ha etc

merry crimbo everyone

Nice try to lure us into a honeypot

LOSERS!

hahahaahahahaahahahhhaahaaha

Then why not try to make a Lil scratch?

This line really gave it away (as if it wasn’t obvious before).

“So in the meantime, I’m off to see how much space I can clear on a couple of 500gig hard drives – these MP3s are simply gathering dust and this Bopaboo opportunity is too good to miss.”

It goes to show how stupid selling mp3s in the first place is (iTunes etc.). Shit, it was bits of whatever when you bought it the first time. Still is… Biggity Whoops!

For those who don’t know, you might find it curious that the RIAA is also headquartered in Washington, D.C.

Hmmm……….

They pushed everybody to treat digital goods as tangible goods (which is insane), and when someone other than themselves finds a way to make money on it, they bitch and whine. They have this, and so much more coming.

I love globalization .

brilliant idea. Is it property or not?? Can u sell it or not?

There are gonna be some Puzzled people sat in Record company offices now.

F**kin LOL…

:-) :-) :-)

Of course this is bait. But it’s not about business models, but scaring the shit out of corporate structure by elevating piracy to unfathomable heights. It’s just the perspective that matters here.

Intresting CNET article, but the guy seems to be avoiding the question. They only (try to) stop each user from uploading the same file twice. There’s probably millions of tracks I can upload…

I put the most important question to him first.

Q: Why don’t you think the recording industry is going to sue you into oblivion?
Meshkin: Obviously, MP3s are very easy to duplicate…It’s very difficult to tell the difference between a so-called new copy and a so-called old copy…I can buy a CD and I can rip it and that behavior has basically been endorsed by the music industry. I can resell that CD on Amazon. The industry doesn’t have a way to monetize physical goods being traded on the secondary market. The first-sale doctrine protects that right. In the physical world consumers have the right to resell their property and copyright owners can’t do anything about that.”

Okay, but there’s no way that the four largest music labels are going to sit back and let you enable people to sell multiple copies of the same song. Isn’t that what people will be able to do using your digital marketplace?
Meshkin: We have the technology in place to prevent you from selling a song more than one time…We take a digital fingerprint through every upload that prevents a user from uploading to our service a track more than one time. Actually we’ve come up with an algorithm, which is beyond what even (digital filtering company) Gracenote does with song identification.
———————

From: http://news.cnet.com/8300-1023_3-93.html?categoryId=9969739

The digital fingerprint comment is, at best, a trick to cover their asses. I’m still more for the “its bait and a trap aka a honeypot”

You can not, possibly EVER, create a true unique and identifyable digital fingerprint for a file that can be altered in a gazillion ways without having the sound that comes out of the MP3 or other audio file changing.

Most of these fingerprinting schemes are defeated simply by overlaying the song with a ultra low or ultra high frequency (aka beyond human hearing) sine.

And there are too many red flags to say otherwise, the biggest IMO being that they are hiding their WHOIS data by using Domains By Proxy.

I give them less than a week before the RIAA pops a little letter through their door.

The next time I cannot find a rare album on torrent sites, if you’re the one selling it on this site then you might have my 3$ instead of iTunes having my 10$.

“Currently in private-beta to United States-based users” yes home of the millennium act fuuuuuuuuq that

Also, the fact that their domain name is owned by ‘DomainsByProxy.com’ is a bit odd – thats a company whos job is to hide the real owner of a domain… seems a bit strange to go to the extra expense of something like that if they didnt have something to hide :p

Stop thinking about making money etc.
This is to change peoples opinion about digital media.

Interesting!

You get a license for a song or album and this license can very well state that you are not allowed to transfer it to someone else.

Much the same goes for any software you buy. You own nothing… You are granted a license.

i wouldnt use it but it makes sense.. if you bought it.. you should be able to sell it since its yours.

Now either MPAA/RIAA will have to admit that it’s not property – and copying it isn’t a crime – becouse digital music doesn’t have any value itself, or if it have a value (like they litigation department claims) then you can sell it right?

It should be great news for all of us if this thing starts to work :)