Webware

Digitization has a disruptive effect on a wide range of industries, from music to software to publishing to...you name it. If it can be digitized, it can be disrupted.

It's therefore encouraging to see the music seemingly converging on a cool new-old model: an ASCAP (American Society of Composers, Authors, & Publishers)-like tax from one's Internet service provider that allows unlimited downloading of music.

Gerd Leonhard's recent presentation on the subject is the best I've seen yet, one that I'd recommend you review, even if you never stray from the software world to think about music:

Leonhard argues that digitization has made a control-based music economy impossible, forcing the industry to seek other ways to monetize music--ways that conform to digitization's abundance, rather than to the old idea of scarcity.

In a sign of things to come, the Isle of Man just approved "a single blanket fee (that) will cover unlimited download activity for all 80,000 or so...residents," as Ars Technica reports.

This follows a new trend toward "free" services, in which the music industry hides the cost of the music in the price of a separate service or device. It's oddly similar to trends I'm seeing in software.

This isn't the only model. As the Future of Music blog points out, some musicians, like Corey Smith, are finding that giving away music to drive more concert ticket sales can be a winning recipe. But while $4.2 million last year for Smith is a great return for an individual artist or band, it's not a great way to build an industry. I'd liken it to "lifestyle" software businesses that generate great revenue for their founders but provide little in the way of equity for other participants in the company's success.

So I think the "adoption tax" model is promising. The future is flat-rate: you subscribe, you forget about paying for individual transactions, you enjoy more music than you ever have before.

This post was updated at 10:12 AM PT to correct the spelling of Joost CEO Mike Volpi's name.

Could a browser-based version of its peer-to-peer software save Joost, the heavily hyped video start-up founded by the creators of Skype and Kazaa?

Portfolio's Kevin Maney wrote a lengthy profile of the once-hot company, and buried inside is a juicy tidbit about a future development: "This year, viewers will be able to watch Joost videos in a browser window," the profile read. Right now, Joost requires a software download, which critics have said is one of its prime setbacks when just about every other online video start-up is browser-based. "Go to Joost's Web site, click on shows like Seth Green's edgy Robot Chicken or an old Rocky and Bullwinkle episode and you can watch them as easily as you'd watch a video on YouTube." Well, that all depends on the technology working as smoothly as YouTube, and the quality being up to par.

Representatives from Joost were not immediately available to confirm that a Web-based version of the video player is on track for later in 2008.

Joost could use a boost. Once touted as a "YouTube killer" that would address rampant online video piracy by offering professional content creators access to a high-quality video platform and revenue from top-notch advertisers, it fell from favor when the content proved tepid and more enticing competitors sprang up--namely Hulu, the joint video venture between NBC Universal and News Corp.

Recently, CBS Interactive President Quincy Smith, whose company counts Joost among the partners in its "Audience Network" of online video outlets, said that he hasn't given up on it and that CEO Mike Volpi "knows what he's doing."

And perhaps Joost can resuscitate itself. While the Web-based Joost remains shadowy, the company has been making other moves: experimenting with live TV programming, for one, starting with the NCAA basketball championship. It's a good PR move, as the availability of "March Madness" games has, at least for now, put Joost back into the vocabulary of Web users--and onto the computer screens of workplace procrastinators.

Time Warner Cable is testing a new pricing structure where heavy broadband users will be charged based on how much data they transfer, a company spokesman said Wednesday.

A trial for the new pricing scheme is expected to begin in Beaumont, Texas, later this year. Time Warner is testing the new pricing model to see if it can curb usage of peer-to-peer applications on its network, said Alex Dudley, a spokesman for the company.

Peer-to-peer protocols allow users to access content that is distributed throughout the network on other computers running the same application. It's commonly used to transfer music and video files, as well as other large data files.

Service providers, such as AT&T, Comcast, and Time Warner, have been complaining recently that peer-to-peer traffic eats up valuable bandwidth. AT&T argues that much of this traffic is used to distribute illegal content, and the company is testing filtering technology to block it.

Comcast has taken a different approach. It has used traffic shaping to slow down some kinds of peer-to-peer traffic. These moves have prompted outcries from consumer groups, and the Federal Communications Commission is currently investigating whether Comcast has violated any of its policies or principles.

Meanwhile, Time Warner thinks that metering bandwidth usage will help solve the problem.

"The idea is to create a more consistent, enhanced experience for our customers," Dudley said. "We can't allow a small percentage of customers to use an inordinate amount of the network to the detriment of the majority of customers."

My first impression of this new model is that Time Warner is treading on some dangerous territory. What is ironic to me is that the company will probably scare off the very high-end customers it wants to attract.

Think about this. Today Time Warner offers a fixed priced for data service. The fastest speed service available is for 10 Mbps downloads and 512 kbps uploads for $44.95 a month. Someone who is willing to spend $45 a month for 10 Mbps of bandwidth is probably the same person who uses peer-to-peer applications. Your basic run-of-the-mill users are probably subscribing to the cheaper 1.5 Mbps/256 kbps service for $29.95

I can almost guarantee you that the $44.95 customers are also savvy enough to know that they are going to lose in the metered-Web model. And they will likely just switch to a competitor, such as Verizon Communications, which offers 15 Mbps downloads and 2 Mbps uploads on its Fios fiber service for $53 a month. Of course, the problem for most consumers is that Fios isn't available everywhere.

Wuala is a new company with a compelling story for Web users: If you want to share files--music, videos, anything--with your friends and family, it will let you do it for free, with no file-size or bandwidth limits.

The catch: You get 1GB of storage for free. Beyond that, you get access to free storage in proportion to the amount of storage from your own hard drive that you share with the Wuala community.

You add files to your Wuala drive by dragging them into the app.

Wuala uses a "mesh" of hard drives from all its users. Everything you share gets sliced into 500 or so pieces and the distributed in tiny bits, and redundancy, to thousands of other users. When you, or someone you're sharing the file with, wants to load or play a file, it's pulled in from users, BitTorrent-like.

It's not easy to build a reliable storage network based on end-user PCs, which tend to be online only sporadically, and with poor upstream bandwidth. Wuala rewards its users that stay online: The amount of storage users have access to is equal to the amount of storage from their own drives that they've set aside for the Wuala network, multiplied by the average percentage of time that their machine is online. In other words, if you're sharing 20GB of your hard disk, and your PC is on 50 percent of the time, you'll be able to use 10GB of space on the Wuala network. PCs that are network-connected less than 20 percent of the time cannot share their space at all.

All files you put up on the network are replicated extensively, so you'll always be able to get the data that you've uploaded. CEO Dominik Grolimund assured me. We had a nice talk about the mechanics of his network's security, redundancy, and reliability that I won't replay here, other than to say that if Wuala doesn't work as reliably as traditional centralized storage, it's going to be a very short-lived start-up.

... Read more

Peer-to-peer company BitTorrent is set to announce on Tuesday morning the availability of a new enterprise content delivery product, BitTorrent DNA. Designed for companies that use streaming video, large downloads or games over the Web, the launch of BitTorrent DNA marks yet another conscious move by the San Francisco-based software brand to move beyond its roots as the creator of file-sharing protocol that became nearly synonymous with digital piracy over the past few years.

BitTorrent described the new BitTorrent DNA product in a statement as "the ideal solution for publishers seeking ways to overcome the obstacles associated with centralized content delivery, such as slow downloads, choppy video streams, and inefficient use of network infrastructure." The inaugural client for the new content delivery network (CDN) is online video start-up Brightcove, which powers a number of large companies' broadband media operations.

BitTorrent DNA will be used to "accelerate" the delivery of the video hosted on Brightcove's platform.

With the rise of online video and large-scale media downloads, content delivery has become a crowded niche in the market. BitTorrent DNA will square off with industry leaders like Akamai Technologies--the force behind CBS' video distribution network as well as a host of others. BitTorrent is hoping, however, that its massive following (150 million downloads of its client, according to the company) will help give it an edge.

In addition, the peer-to-peer format has become increasingly popular in the streaming video space, with recent entries like Joost and Babelgum touting P2P technology as the backbone for their professional-quality video content.

In February, BitTorrent announced that it was creating a digital download store that would use that robust user base as a way to legally transfer large movies, games and other files. The company has also forged alliances with major movie studios for legal film downloads.

Meanwhile, the exhaustive battle over online piracy wages on.

Sharing files from your PC is nothing new. BitTorrent is all about sharing media files with the world, as Napster was before it. And file sharing products like Pando, eSnips, Titanize, Box.Net, YouBackItUp, and many others make it possible to share other files, or even entire directories and hard drives.

So when the team from Izimi pitched me on their new PC-based file publishing system as "the future of Internet publishing," I didn't really share their wonder.

I did try to find the spark of this product over the weekend. What I found was a tool that lets you turn your PC into a read-only file server accessible from any Internet-connected computer. To be very clear: This is cool. You can share any file: photos, videos, Word documents. If you have a lot of files to share, this could save you from the hassle of uploading everything to a sharing service. You could, instead, just point people to your files on your computer. Everything you share gets its own static Web address.

My Izimi page. Are these files online or not? Izimi doesn't tell you.

(Credit: CNET Networks)

I like the concept, but there are problems. For example: No access control. Once you publish a file, anyone can read it as long as your PC is turned on and running the Izimi client. Want to share wedding videos with your family and friends? Great. But if you use Izimi to do so, you also give the whole world the capability to download the movies from your PC and soak up your outbound bandwidth. Actually, there is access control: Terminate the Izimi process on your computer. Then access to your content dries up immediately.

Izimi.com is also a social network for its users, which makes finding content easy. (Too easy; see previous paragraph.) The Izimi Web site keeps a directory of all the files shared using the service. Unfortunately, the service doesn't tell you who is online, so when you click on a file you might get it or you might not; there's no way to tell beforehand.

I have other issues with Izimi's implementation. It takes too many steps to post a file, for instance. If you're posting multiple files, it's tedious. And the Izimi software is a file server only. It won't serve Web sites you design on your computer (except the most basic), and it won't make a media file streamable if it's not inherently. In other words, some files will start playing immediately (MP3s started up right away for me), but some need to be downloaded first (like AVIs). In the case of video files, which can be huge, that puts a real damper on things.

The founders acknowledged my privacy concerns and are planning to build in access controls. I'm waiting. In the meantime, if I want to share files, I'll send out private links through Titanize, or publish my media on a hosting service (like Videoegg) where I don't have to worry about my own system's limited outbound bandwidth ruining the browsing experience for my viewers.

Izimi is launching today.

See also: Tubes.