Quote:
Originally Posted by DeathMonkey  An excellent example is the band Harvey Danger who offers the opportunity to download their album on their website. As soon as they decided to do this, their popularity grew. By offering their album as a download, they gained a lot of fans, collected donations, and probably sold more albums. |
Interesting post DM but that is the
exact type of 'example' that pisses me off to no end!
The author is citing the above example as a benefit of P2P services when in actuality what it illustrates is how an unknown band can take advantage of the internet by
willfully offering their music for free.
In this example did the P2P services help to spread the bands music? The author doesn't actually clarify this point but if they did it was
only after the band made the decision to offer their music as a free download on their own website.
While this is a great example of an internet savvy band, offering your music as a free download on your own website has
nothing to do with file 'sharing'! For the sake of argument though, let's say fans of the band then when on to share those files through a P2P service. The band would've received the
exact same benefits from the files being shared over a P2P service that was regulated and
held responsible for the content being 'shared'.
Spin it anyway you want but there is no good argument as to why P2P's should be allowed as conduits for obtaining copywritten material that is
intended for purchase. P2P services that feature bands who willfully allow their material to be distibuted? I'm all for it.