Quote:
|
Odyssey said the recording industry should offer services that allow consumers to create their own "play lists" of songs, and transfer ("burn") the music to their preferred format. The firm said 60 percent of U.S. households have some interest in subscribing to such a service.
|
The recording industry isn't keeping up with technology and the demands of the consumer. Sure there are always going to be people who will pirate their products for a profit and there will always be users who aren't willing to pay for anything....but if Odyssey's 60 percent number is correct then it sounds that the recording industry can profit of this file sharing craze. Although, I do believe that it would be better if the bands themselves get involved with this so that they can retain most of the profits themselves, but I think you get my point.
The recording industry waste so much time and money trying to completely ban this whole file sharing craze when it's almost impossible to do so. You know there is always going to be some computer whiz that will be able to hack the lastest protection. Also, the file sharing programs themselves are getting better each time.
Now if there was a subscription based version that was priced correctly and allowed full ownership...meaning they allow the user to possess and copy what they have downloaded....then I think that we might be on to something. The problem is that the recording industry took way to long to introduce a pay service to the general public. Most p2p users are use to the idea of getting files for free now. I'm curious as to how things might've turned out if there was a
good subscription based version introduced during the early days of Napster......
What I don't understand is the recording industry's refusal to allow full use(copying) of their files on a subscription based service when users are basically doing the same thing when they buy CDs rip them and then share them. They would at least be making some profit if they had a file distribution program that is equal to or better then the popular current p2p programs. Basically, file sharing is going to keep happening anyway and the sooner the recording industry realizes that the sooner they can create a "legitimate" industry from the p2p community.
Of course, there is always going to be the free p2p programs like the ones we have now, but on the same token there will also be users who are willing to pay for a
good service. The actual percentage is debatable, but if Odyssey's numbers are correct then it seems that there are many users who are willing to pay for it. I'm sure many users are sick of spyware, poor customer support service, and not having the peace of mind about not wasting time downloading viruses or fake files.
But the point I'm trying to get at is that the recording industry's blatant refusal to create a good alternative to the current p2p programs is not only fool hearted but can also increase the use of these programs because "legitimate" companies aren't filling the void for the user's demand in these areas. Not all users use p2p programs only to get free files (it's definitely a perk
). Some users see it as a convenience to be able to download what they want. And for some users files like certain tv series aren't broadcast in their areas but they can be found on p2p programs. It's a lot more effecient then getting a satellite dish with 1,000s of channels when there was really only one channel you wanted or tv series.
So instead of whining about how p2p programs are ruining their industry, why don't they see the potential and keep up with what the users want. Don't get me wrong. I like downloading free stuff like everyone else, but not everyone is dead set against not paying as long as their is a good alternative. So far there isn't one so how can they be so sure that it won't work. They can either stop their whining or provide us with a good alternative because p2p programs are here to stay.....
Sorry everyone, I had to get that off my chest
