Slashdot Mirror
Row Brews Over P2P Advertising
KennyMillar writes "BBC News Online is reporting that advertisers are starting to place ads on P2P networks, because they are so popular. But the owners of paid-for download services are accusing them of "providing 'oxygen' for companies that support illegal downloading.""
Providing oxygen to illegal downloading? Okay the next time you get in a car and drive on a road, you are supporting drunk driving.
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
How dare they come up with an innovative business model that directly competes with established companies. This isn't a free market here.
Don't get me wrong though, ads in P2P networks are a huge pain in the ass.
As for the advertising. Well my bittorrent client has no images, I can turn adverts off with Mozilla on web pages, so I'm fairly free. There are ads all over the internet now, why is this any different.. Now if they started inserting ad breaks into a film I downloaded that may be a different matter.
On one side amoral advertisers who will stoop to any measure to get their 'message' across. On the other possibly the greediest most conniving industry in the world. Lets hope they do some serious damage to each other.
Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
What truth?
There is no dupe
"Paul Myers, chief executive of Wippit - a peer to peer service which provides paid-for music downloads - believes it is time advertisers stopped providing 'oxygen' for companies that support illegal downloading.
"You may be surprised to know that current advertisers on the most popular peer to peer service eDonkey who now steadfastly support copyright theft with real cash money include Nat West, Vodafone, O2, First Direct, NTL, and Renault," he said in an open letter to the British Phonographic Industry last month.
He urged people to follow his lead and 'dump' brands associated with companies such as eDonkey.
'Networks like eDonkey, Kazaa and Grokster facilitate illegal filesharing. The BPI strongly believes that any reputable company should look carefully at the support they are giving these networks through their advertising revenue," it said in a statement. "
Self-serving words aside, he's got a point. If advertisers want to place themselves on P2P networks, doesn't that legitimize them? The next time Congress tries to declare P2P an outlaw technology, just say, "But it's got mainstream advertising! It must be legitimate. Money makes the world go round, right Congressman? You wouldn't want to outlaw an outlet for advertising dollars, would you?"
How is this any different to government adverts on late night tv in the uk? Are the government trying to encourage people to stay up late watching pr0n on channel 5, in order that they watch their adverts? Because, if they are, that's morally reprehensable, and obscene, and the government clearly supports pr0n, so I Object!
If their "competition" is the music industry, then their product is something to which they don't own the rights.
If it's not the music industry, then you're talking out your ass.
I'm pretty surprised any p2p app that has the potential to be used for illegal filetrading is using ads, as that revenue stream is exactly what got Napster collared and dragged through the courts.
Soulseek was smart enough to use a donation system instead, as that doesn't give the "directly profiting from people using the system" way in the legal bods needed to prosecute the bejesus out of them.