Quote:
Originally Posted by Jazzpunk  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. |
You guys are agruing two different points. You're right that this can happen without P2Ps/ His point is that there is a benefit to giving away music.
The way I see it is that if you change the revenue model so that everyone benefits from free distribution of music, P2Ps then have an enormous value becuase they are the most effective method of delivering the free music.
But of course, with the curent model, losing P2Ps doesn't hurt the industry in any way.