Slashdot Mirror
Will Legal P2P Music Distribution Succeed?
SnowWolf2003 writes "It looks like a couple of people are trying to find a way to distribute music legally over P2P networks. The latest is Mercora (with more information here). Also Napster 2.0 is due for release sometime next week. Can any of these Windows alternatives to Apple's iTunes compete though with the inherent restrictions built into the wma format? Note MusicMatch has just launched a windows based service with fewer restrictions equivalent to the iTunes policy. More importantly, can these P2P services lure enough people away from restriction free Kazaa to make themselves successful, where P2P networks rely on a large user base?"
People will be either willing to pay for the bandwidth of distribution, or for the content. Not both.
For 9.99 or 14.99 a month, I can get 2000 songs. This isn't a solution everyone, because most of what they have is indie labels. But if you're like me, into punk, techno and hip hop you should def. check it out.
Disclaimer: Its not unlimited. 2000 songs a month and you'll get capped or terminated or something, and you won't find the latest and greatest from the RIAA.
Please stop equating copyright infringement with thieft. It dilutes the term; thieves are the scum who broke into my friend's car and took my digital camera, clothes, books, etc. Thieves are the scum who broke into another friend's house and took 20K UKP worth of stuff, including his pile of CD-R backups containing the source-code that is his job. Thieves are the scum who deprive other people of their rightful property and security.
They are not people who get unauthorised copies of software or media -- they aren't depriving the owners of anything, much of the time not even potential sales.
Piracy is a similarly poor choice of term -- pirates are scum who murder, terrorise and steal from ships and the like. Equating them with people who copy and distribute media is like calling litterbugs rapists.