A New P2P Music Business
What happens if the founder of Napster and a music executive get together to start a business? They create a hybride: open and closed at the same time.
Yet, the basic questions remains: will music lovers pay for a better service, if they can get decent service elsewhere for free? Would you pay for a stable and well organized P2P service? You could use it for free to exchange music and other content for free. You could try the music for free, but after listening five times you would need to pay. This is basically the business model Shawn Fanning and a music executive came up with us as todays NYTimes reports. More below:
“Unlike iTunes and other “closed” systems, where people can buy only what the retailer chooses to sell, Mashboxx is a true “open” peer-to-peer system that in theory can download any song from any computer that participates in a file-sharing network. This could include something that a garage band recorded by itself or a free release by an up-and-coming indie group.
If a Mashboxx user tries to download a song that has been registered as copyrighted in Snocap’s database, however, Mashboxx will either block the download or substitute a free but low-quality version on which an announcer invites listeners to pay for a high-quality version without announcements if they like what they hear. The free version would expire after being played five times.
Mr. Rosso says that this tests the theory that people use peer-to-peer, or P2P, file-sharing networks to try out songs, and that they will pay for music they like. “It is the great hypocrisy leveler,” he said. “We will see if people use P2P to sample music or not.”
More at: nytimes.com
Time will tell.
3 Responses to “A New P2P Music Business”
Add yours.
I would pay a reasonable fee for Free music. Say CC BY-SA as a first cut. (With high quality sources mind you. I would want to be able to take advantage of the rights offered in a meaningful way.)
all the best,
drew
—
http://www.ourmedia.org/node/85937
Tings – A CC BY-SA Novel in progress re nanowrimo 2005.
[Mr. Rosso says that this tests the theory that people use peer-to-peer, or P2P, file-sharing networks to try out songs, and that they will pay for music they like. “It is the great hypocrisy leveler,” he said. “We will see if people use P2P to sample music or not.”]
Please, get a better argument than that. Five times is often not enough for songs to grow on me. In my teenage years, I bought a couple of Elton John albums becuase of the hits, but after many plays, came to like some of the non hits as much or more.
Secondly, and I don’t necessarily think I fall in this category, some people will never like the low quality version. It bothers their ears too much. I can listen to songs on the radio with lots of static and still enjoy them if I like the songs. It drives my wife nuts.
So, try your business model. If it helps move the music business towards a more sane model. Props to you. But, stop with the straw men.
all the best,
drew
—
http://www.ourmedia.org/user/17145
Some of my CC BY-SA stuff on ourmedia
Yet, if the observation is true is that people do not want to pay for content, even after trying it, the music industry is in bigger trouble than it thinks. This leaves mainly indirect revenue streams such as merchandising or using fame to do other things bringing in money, or through concerts. At the same time the success of itunes suggests that a well structured service can be a successful business, because its more convenient than current filesharing services (at least for many users)…….So where does leave Fanning and Rosso: quite likely with a business that will not work!