Classic example; think of when you order aspirin. Nine times out of ten do you actually get the brand aspirin or do you get another product with the same properties?
Why would Hollywood invest in a "napster" company?
This is probably more of a pre-emptive maneuver by the movie industry, the music industry has been reduced to playing a defensive game, reacting to developments on the Internet i.e. suing. Offering pay-per-view downloads won't work if there's anything like the piracy in the music industry. Because of bandwith issues, the threat to video hasn't really materialized yet, but eventually the bandwidth will arrive, and by that time they'll have learned a lot about this type of filesharing.
Why would Napster do this (or ex-employees of Napster)?
Napster is not really a winning business model is it?
They're dealing with lawsuits, competition (freenet, gnutella), and a bad image towards investors, legitimacy and an exit strategy are probably the main factors.
Slashdot Mirror
It is bad.
Classic example;
think of when you order aspirin. Nine times out of ten do you actually get the brand aspirin or do you get another product with the same properties?
it's actually bad for the sales of the company
Why would Hollywood invest in a "napster" company?
This is probably more of a pre-emptive maneuver by the movie industry, the music industry has been reduced to playing a defensive game, reacting to developments on the Internet i.e. suing. Offering pay-per-view downloads won't work if there's anything like the piracy in the music industry.
Because of bandwith issues, the threat to video hasn't really materialized yet, but eventually the bandwidth will arrive, and by that time they'll have learned a lot about this type of filesharing.
Why would Napster do this (or ex-employees of Napster)?
Napster is not really a winning business model is it?
They're dealing with lawsuits, competition (freenet, gnutella), and a bad image towards investors, legitimacy and an exit strategy are probably the main factors.