Welcome to p2pnet.net - The original daily p2p and digital news site. Always First!
REGISTER | LOGIN
RIAA News
Cool Stuff
MPAA News
Games / Consoles
News
Music
Movies
Reviews
Open Source
Mobiles
Advertising
Products
P2P
Off Topic
Freedom
Politics
Interviews
Security
DRM
Links
Kids and Kartels
Search: 
Search
 
Web P2PNET   
Search: 
Search
Torrent Site Tracker
Teksavvy
 
Add real-time p2pnet headlines to YOUR site ! Click here to download our newsfeed code

Why P2P will kill Spotify …

p2pnet news view | P2P | Music:- It makes me weep to think of the library of Alexandria — all the knowledge of the ancient world lost forever at a stroke (or possibly four strokes, according to Wikipedia). There is something very appealing about collecting everything together — as well as the sheer trainspotterish satisfaction of being able to point to it and say: we humans did all this, it is actually useful and increases the breadth of access for the folk who may use it. Which is presumably why (it is alleged) Egyptian kings habitually took scrolls from any place they conquered to boost the resources of their own scholars as well as their bragging rights. Unfortunately, of course, it also made these texts more vulnerable to sudden annihilation.

The closest modern equivalents are national reference libraries such as the British Library or the US Library of Congress, and being made of easily destroyed physical matter they are still as vulnerable as the original Alexandrian library must have been to fire or vandalism.

Fortunately, it’s unlikely that written culture could be even partially destroyed in a single event today. The arrival of the printing press massively increased the likelihood that texts would survive library fires, because copies of those texts are dispersed throughout the bookshelves of ordinary readers far and wide though of course reconstructing the convenience of the library itself would still require a huge effort.

Since the invention of sound recording, the same has been true of music, which could formerly be captured only imperfectly in music notation. It is hard for me to properly express my gratitude for  living in an age where I can be moved by music made by artists I have never had a chance to see perform, and who in some cases died before I was even born.

Although sound archives have existed ever since, and proliferate today, often in the same locations where other cultural artefacts are collected, the internet has created a state of affairs where – instead of requiring a visit, to enjoy the collection’s wonders for a while, then go home — the library can now come to the people, in an always-on accessible form.

There have of course been several commercial attempts to bring such a library into effect. The first one I used was built into MusicMatch Jukebox, a now defunct media player, whose library was later absorbed by Yahoo before suffering the Alexandria treatment earlier this year.

Since then there’s been Pandora, last.fm, and a bunch of others, all of which present their musical riches as ‘radio stations’, randomly selected tunes from their partial collections, based on some taste matching method or other. (In fact there were even such recommendation engines before delivering music over the net was a realistic proposition. Anyone remember Dragonfly?)

Newcomer Spotify has abandoned some of the central tenets of streaming music services: instead of radio stations with taste assessment and recommendation, Spotify presents as a media player pre-stocked with a catalogue from which the user can make free selections, build and share playlists.

Unsurprisingly, this has proved very popular with users in the countries where it is available (mostly in Europe, and pointedly not the US where the licensing regime has made profitability impossible for streaming services). Who knew that people like to choose for themselves the music they want to listen to? They are apparently even prepared to put up with radio style advertising to get it, which is how Spotify intends to support itself in lieu of securing an adequate number of subscribers to its premium version.

But, like its predecessors, Spotify suffers from a crippled catalogue. One hardly needs to imagine the licensing shenanigans going on behind the scenes here. Artists’ work has been disappearing, and availability of some music depends on the licensing regime in which you happen to live.

There is something sickening about these negotiations. This is not how the internet is meant to work (although it feels horribly familiar, particularly after the regional restrictions recently introduced by last.fm, in which the more consumerist countries got to keep their free radio, while those with less disposable income had to fork out for it).

Culture, like investment, is too important to leave in the hands of big business.

Fortunately it doesn’t have to be.

All the tools are there to emancipate streaming from the bean-counters, and perhaps ironically the blueprint has been laid by the very same company whose CEO pronounced last week that Spotify would kill file sharing. There is already a library which encompasses pretty much all recorded works, in many versions and variations. As with the written word’s distributed protection against cultural destruction, it lies in the hands of you and I the ordinary music lover. It’s on hard drives, memory sticks and iPods. But unlike the world’s bookshelves, these mini libraries are connected.

Traditional P2P networks, with their searchable databases of individuals’ shared folders, may have fallen into disfavour lately as zip files of specific albums and artist discographies have swarmed across the net. But the myriad folders of songs, whether hastily ripped at random or lovingly tended and cared for, are still there, in more copious quantities then ever, and can be connected up as a single large network in a trice if the need and the technology arises.

A core piece of Spotify’s strategy is to store the music on the user’s computer in an arcane series of folders (you can find them in \Users\<user>\AppData\Local\Spotify\Storage under Windows Vista/7, but it won’t do you much good – the files are sneakily mangled) and stream it to other users to reduce strain their own servers.

I thought this was just nonsense, but according to one of the developers it actually works and has a significant impact on network costs. If it seems impolite of Spotify to store hundreds of megabytes of music on your computer, and serve up bits of it over your connection, without loudly announcing what it’s going to do, and a further insult that you can’t even access this yourself, this kind of behaviour has become par for the course with the latest generation of streaming apps. Yes, Spotify, as well as most streaming TV services like iPlayer, is a peer-to-peer application.

Streaming is a very nice way to have instant access to a lot of music that may not be available locally on your computer, phone, etc but none of the current offerings come close to what could be achieved. What if, instead of the limited catalogue it can squeeze out of yesteryear’s cultural gatekeepers, and limited to whatever countries look like good marketing suckers, a Spotify-like application could draw instead on the normal, unobfuscated library of every user worldwide?

Put a nice user interface on top of an existing p2p network like Gnutella, download file parts from all and sundry just in time for the complete song to be streamed to the listener, and there’s your international, ad-free, maximal-library version of Spotify right there. Someone is probably already working on this right now.

What a crazy world it is: the very mechanisms which are supposed to protect artists from exploitation are actually hindering their music from being heard, while, due to label accounting trickery, it is uncertain whether they will receive any income at all from the services that do play it.  It is hard to know which would be worse for artists: the success of an efficient but essentially unmonetizable underground solution, or the current situation where their works are used as pawns in a mad licensing dance from which it is unlikely anyone will gain but the labels and their lawyers.

Chris Ovenden The Peer
[Ovenden is a self-confessed technology freak who says he always ends up writing about culture, or who is perhaps a culture nut continually drawn towards the hi-tech, he plays guitar, makes websites and teaches. Editorships of various on- and offline publications lurk in his past, "and possibly his future".]

Follow p2pnet on Twitter.

1p Subscribe

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win ~ Mahatma Gandhi

September, 2009


Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It`s really easy!
Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php


Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details.

HOME

10 Responses to “Why P2P will kill Spotify …”

  1. Sanity Says:

    “There is something sickening about these negotiations. This is not how the internet is meant to work”

    The internet is simply a mirror image of our society. It will therefore not only be up to the “technology freaks” to decide what the internet will look like or how it will work. If you are really interested in what the net will look like in a couple of years, just look out your window.

    “Culture, like investment, is too important to leave in the hands of big business.”

    Are you going to organize the next U2 or Kravitz concert? Are you going to produce the next District 9 or Star Trek. Big companies come up with huge entertainment events that many people love and many people pay for it. It enables those companies to make more movies most of you will go and visit (Lord of the rings anyone?)

    You should at least give the filmmakers some respect for that. Some cultural elements have been contributed by the big companies. Whether you like it or not.

  2. Truth Says:

    “What a crazy world it is: the very mechanisms which are supposed to protect artists from exploitation are actually hindering their music from being heard, while, due to label accounting trickery, it is uncertain whether they will receive any income at all from the services that do play it. It is hard to know which would be worse for artists: the success of an efficient but essentially unmonetizable “underground” solution, or the current situation where their works are used as pawns in a mad licensing dance from which it is unlikely anyone will gain but the labels and their lawyers.”

    This is because human nature dictates the flow of things. People want to become famous, want to make a lot of money. They want to reach that goal as quickly as possible and are ready to sell their souls for that or the souls of other people.

    Here’s where the tech freaks went wrong: they actually thought that if you give people technological freedom, freedom of speech, anonimity and the ability to steal another persons property, everything would be a perfect Hobbit-like world.

    The consumers and artists themselves are the root of the problem. And their greed, lust, gluttony and envy…

  3. Positive note Says:

    you all have shown the way to the industry. How to distribute, how to make accessible and how to enjoy in a user friendly way. All of you should be happy about it. Sure, some of you will have to spend some time in jail, but at least your ideas will prosper in the hands of big corporations which will now go and further exploit it.

    Thank you Torrentspy, thank you Pirate Bay, thank you Oink, thank you File Soup and thank you Usenet.

    Thanks to you all internet users will be offered neat and clean catalogues and indexes, spam and spyware free, user friendly interfaces and low cost content.

    You made the world a better place.

  4. NO1UNO Says:

    3 comments….1 shill, need i say more??

  5. Thomas Koltai Says:

    Rather sad really. I really thought that spotify could take the Quantum leap and deliver the profits that the music moguls sop badly need.
    However if even they can’t get their shit together…..

    Well, Levitt (in Freakonomics) was unfortunately wrong. He opined that 85% of the world was basically honest and would prefer to pay for their content. (The bagle seller.)

    What he didnt allow for in his conclusion was that the vendor didnt actually want to sell at a price that the consumer could afford.

    I have always considered the Emule network the greatest repository of knowledge, media and culture that exists anywhere in the world.
    I doubt that Spotify would kill it off, however with 2.37 new customers born every second globally (births minus deaths) there was a chance that the newbies would take up Spotify and allow the music industries to leave us oldies alone……

    If the content Gods can’t even agree on Spotify – I guess their business model really doesnt have anywhere to go. At all.

  6. Jon Says:

    Hi Tom:

    “Well, Levitt (in Freakonomics) was unfortunately wrong. He opined that 85% of the world was basically honest and would prefer to pay for their content.”

    So the world is … ?

    Cheers!

  7. Crosbie Fitch Says:

    ‘Content’ is the word used to describe a magical fluid by those who have just emerged from a charlatan’s tent, gullible victims of an elaborate con.

    Supposedly an artist produces this magical fluid and it’s just as valuable in each copy in which it is magically duplicated. Hence how vital it is that the proper publishing wizards are appointed to manufacture each container, properly reimbursing the artist each time their magical fluid is increased by its expansive flow into another receptacle. It is clearly also vital that any miscreant caught attempting to make their own magical fluid containers, to steal the precious magical fluid the artist has painstakingly exuded from the sweat of their brow, be punished severely (fined millions and preferably jailed).

    This notion of art as precious magical fluid, as content for only bona fide magical fluid containers is superstitious nonsense. There is no such thing as ‘content’ in terms of intellectual work. If you hear anyone utilise the term you can consider them to have visited the con tent and eaten it hook, line and sinker.

    There is only intellectual work, such as may be performed through considerable effort by an artist, inventor, engineer, etc. And copies, such as may be produced by children as easily and naturally as farting.

    Obviously, you pay the artist handsomely for their work. You don’t pay a kid for a copy.

    So, let’s not get confused by the con man.

    A copy is to work, as shit is to Shinola.

  8. Thomas Koltai Says:

    @Jon, I still believe in the inherent goodness of the majority of the people of the world. Call me a sucker, call me naive, but I guess I’m at heart a small town boy (Darwin, Oz – Reno NV – Szentgothart – Hu) where the people help their neighbours and used to leave their cars and houses unlocked.
    Those same people would rather starve than steal something from a neighbour.

    On that basis and with the Bagle sellers 15 years of statistics, I have to say that the ONLY reason 85% of the world is pirating music is that they cant get access to it in any other “REASONABLE” manner.

    And music industry guys – reasonable aint iTunes. Reasonable aint “Register here – put your credit card details there, sign your life away here…….” It aint none of your business what music I elect to buy, download and listen too.

    So I guess many Internet users utilise P2P as a convenience and a privacy screen with a few electing purposely to utilise P2P as a cost saving measure. Although at the rates us Aussies pay for Internet….. it aint cheap downloading a music track on the internet…… it costs almost as much as iTunes charges – when you addin the wasted bandwidth that media-sentry et al insist that they steal from us.

    So in this very long winded answer to your question – I guess if there’s no viable option to obtaining the necessities of life like food, air and water… then the 85% who steal food air and water must be thieves….. but the 57% of aussies that download? Well, they’re just sticking it to the man… ;-)

  9. Jon Says:

    heh

    And so endeth Chapter 79, vs 202. ;)

    Cheers, Tom

  10. Devil's Advocate Says:

    @Tom:

    “…when you addin the wasted bandwidth that media-sentry et al insist that they steal from us.”

    I’m still puzzled at how MediaSentry gets to continue interfering with Aussie transmissions.
    (I thought they weren’t licensed to even think about looking at them.)

Leave a Reply

Please no spam, attacking others, trolling, posting off-topic. Thanks.

    Sponsored by