I don't know if this is the correct place to ask this...

[JackSpratts]

Welcome shepdog

Top of my head...



· Searches should be wide, deep and scalable. i.e., if you’re looking for Metalica and other common fare “simple search” is OK but for obscurities a more powerful engine must be employed with default to simple so network traffic stays minimal.

· Multi source downloading/swarming.

· Decentralized, encrypted social functions, i.e. Chat, Rooms, VOIP etc.

· Some sort of decentralized plugin BBS for users spending more time on the system. Usually the ones with the most inventory spend the most time on the network. Catering to their needs can have the effect of improving the entire community. A local BBS could end up becoming your P2P killer app. Think of how much time people already spend at their favorite boards. Getting any of that means huge numbers.

· File back-ups are essential but something no P2P client addresses. Including it would make yours stand out. To that end seeing “1 click” back-ups from inside the download folder, multi-disc roll-over (automatically span the data across multiple discs) auto-name of disc and html generation of disc filenames/folder for archiving would all be plusses. If you’d like details I can show you programs that include some of these features.

· IP masking: essential atm.

As for money – I’d pay for a client but never for a subscription. Perhaps it’s a matter of perception but to me money for a client rewards the client creator and that's fine, whereas a monthly subscription seems to pay for content - ultimately ripping off artists, and that's unacceptable.

- js.

[Mazer]

There's always the possibility of starting an open source project. Let others share the work load while you supervise. The program would still be yours but you wouldn't have to devote all your time doing what others could do for you. Even then there are still advertizing opportunities (as long as you don't use adware or spyware).

[Headbanger]

Originally Posted by JackSpratts

a monthly subscription seems to pay for content - ultimately ripping off artists,

That's a curious statement. How can "paying for content" be presumed to be "ripping off artists" without understanding how revenues will be dispursed in that particular business model?

"Paying for content" suggests royalties. But who gets the royalties? Well, that depends on who owns the rights to the music. Any artist who is signed to a major label - the label most likely owns the rights, and therefore would receive the lion's share of the royalties. The artist in this case is being ripped off, but they are being ripped off by the label for whom they signed a contract... not the purchasers of the content.

Many bands are either independant or own their own rights even though they are signed to a major label. Some big name artists own their own label. In these cases, the artists would receive all the royalties due from the purchase of their music. This would hardly be "ripping off the artist."

[JackSpratts]

Originally Posted by Headbanger

That's a curious statement. How can "paying for content" be presumed to be "ripping off artists" without understanding how revenues will be dispursed in that particular business model?

the "paying for content" p2p models in existence so far don’t include any revenue for either artists labels or songwriters. the revenue seems to exist solely for the benefit of the system operator. soulseek is one system that famously comes to mind. the web is filled with many others, even cases where vendors are charging for systems they don't own or contribute to, in effect a double rip-off of artists and the p2p community.

getting something for free is just that, an insignificance, and with all the studies done so far no correlation has been established that conclusively proves free content reduces sales, studies they’ve had plenty of time to make. file sharing’s been going on for the better part of a decade. generations if you include home taping. several well respected studies go so far as to show a benefit to sales, with increases noted in certain circumstances. while where you stand on the issue has a lot to do with where your bread is buttered it's hard for anyone to tie an effect to sales one way or the other in a purely objective fashion.

purchasing content is an entirely different matter. with each entertainment dollar spent one is removed from the general pool, leaving less for creators and producers.

so if the pay model is the same one we’ve been seeing for years yeah it’s a rip-off of the creative community. if we’re looking at a new model that's great - but it’s news to me and to hollywood. for as long as p2ps've existed file sharing companies have tried to broker an arrangement but the riaa/mpaa has not allowed anything like revenue sharing to date and they have indicated no intention of allowing it anytime soon. besides competition if there’s anything they fear more than p2p i haven’t heard of it so i don’t see them doing anything except continuing their attempts to kill it. stupid yes and counterproductive definitely but there you go. it’s their loss.

- js.