Quote:
Originally posted by ssj4_android
IMO, I wouldn't pay for P2P. I might pay, however, to get perfect quality music off a high speed server.
|
I agree and also wouldn't pay for any
current p2p program. Any paid service of current p2p programs is going to fail because they are not providing the content and bandwidth themselves. They are relying on the users to do all that for them so the users will ask why should they pay. The program itself is not the reason most users would start paying. The payment would be for the content and it has to a large selection of high quality content that can be copied to CD by the user, but the recording industry is putting a strangle hold on this issue.
A paid service would most likely have to be ftp servers and possibly combined with the help of p2p technology. But the point I was trying to make is that the recording industry is putting blame on the p2p community when they refuse to see the potentional of the file sharing concept. Reports from sources like Odyssey states that there seems to a rather large number of users willing to subscribe to a paid service. It wouldn't have to work exactly as our current p2p programs, but there is a new industry out there that they are completely ignoring, so they only have themselves to blame.
I'm not really for or against paid services. I'm just tired of the recording industry's fool harded ideals and then blaming it on the users. P2p technology can be used to benefit the user
and the recording industry but rather then provide us with a good alternative they decide that they should just ban it.