Napster, eh?
The reason most often given for stealing creative works of artists
is that the record companies are corrupt and charge unreasonable
amounts for CDs while giving very little of the money to the actual
artists.
Unfortunately, stealing music cuts out the artists completely.
Artists find themselves between a rock (record companies) and a hard
place (fans stealing their work).
The second most common reason given for stealing the creative works
of artists is that people don't want to pay for a whole CD that
contains more than the songs they really want.
How about this: Instead of designing yet another system for stealing
the creative works of artists, why not design a system that will let
music fans pay reasonable amounts for the music they really want?
Why not design a system that encourages further creative works by
directly rewarding the artists, while at the same time saving money
for ethical fans who want to support the artists they love without
being exploited by the record company system?
There's a chance to free both artists and fans here and help usher a
new renaissance of music. (Or is it better to continue to exploit
the artists even more egregiously than the record companies already
do?)
Thoughts?
Best Regards,
-Jamie Krutz
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Just a quick thought on a do-able REBOL-based replacement for Napster
> (a.k.a. REBster):
>
> 1. User A uses a REBOL client to send a list of shared files to a POP
> address, including an authentication code.
>
> 2. A server running a REBOL server checks the POP address periodically for
> new mail and downloads new mail.
>
> 3. The REBOL server authenticates each e-mail and stores User A's list of
> shared files and User A's e-mail address in a database.
>
> 4. Using a REBOL client, User B browses to
> www.sharemyfiles.com/rebolrocks.r and a REBOL-based CGI operation
> dynamically generates a page of links to shared files, which includes links
> to User A's files. The links to User A's files are a GET operation which
> include User A's e-mail address and the name of a shared file.
>
> 5. User B clicks on a link to one of User A's files.
>
> 6. The REBOL server generates an e-mail, sending it to User A including an
> authentication code, the name of the requested file, and User B's e-mail
> address.
>
> 7. User A's REBOL client periodically checks its POP account for new mail
> and downloads any new mail.
>
> 8. User A's REBOL client authenticates each e-mail and then generates an
> outgoing e-mail to User B including the attached file.
>
> Now the question is: does such a file-sharing model get around the legal
> improprieties brought to light in the Napster case? There is no continually
> active connection between User A and the server nor User B and the server.
> The server only posts a list of files another person says he or she would
> like to share and then sends an e-mail requesting the share. You could even
> have it so that when User A receives the request, he or she must click on a
> button that confirms the share.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Ryan C. Christiansen
> Web Developer
>
> Intellisol International
> 4733 Amber Valley Parkway
> Fargo, ND 58104
> 701-235-3390 ext. 6671
> FAX: 701-235-9940
> http://www.intellisol.com
>
> Global Leader in People Performance Software
>
> _____________________________________
>
> Confidentiality Notice
> This message may contain privileged and confidential information. If you
> think, for any reason, that this message may have been addressed to you in
> error, you must not disseminate, copy or take any action in reliance on it,
> and we would ask you to notify us immediately by return email to
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list, please send an email to
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe" in the
> subject, without the quotes.
--
To unsubscribe from this list, please send an email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe" in the
subject, without the quotes.
