You cannot compete with billions of illegal files free on P2P networks.
I hear this all the time. It's dead wrong.
It would be easy to compete with P2P. How? By adding value. Right now there's no incentive to buy music, even DRM free music. You pay, download, and end up with a decent quality recording. With P2P? The same thing, except you don't pay. Why would anyone pay? Because it's the right thing to do? We've already seen that an entire generation doesn't think so.
Instead of suing people or pressing for ISP surveillance, compete. Add value. If there's real value, people will pay.
How could a music distributor add value to an online music store?
Speed. Provide blazing fast servers or even use a P2P model. Guarantee fast downloads.
Permanent availability of purchases. Once you buy a track it becomes a part of your online library. You can download it again, as many times as you want, forever.
Format versatility. You can choose your container format and bitrate. Provide anything from 128k to FLAC.
Streaming. Stream the user's purchased music so they don't need to download it.
Playlists. Manage your music online. Download entire playlists. Share playlists with friends.
Online Community. Provide amazing community tools. Forums, chat, profiles, ratings, reviews, points, scores, avatars. People love this stuff. Think WoW, Gamertags, Facebook, etc. Make it clean and unobtrusive.
Recommendations. Use a database to make suggestions about similar music based on purchased music, browsed music, friends' music, etc.
The price also needs to be minuscule per song. Precisely low enough that it feels like "nothing" when you purchase. Somewhere around $0.10/song and $1/album. At this price point no one will hesitate to buy something they're unfamiliar with, and people will gladly re-purchase their entire CD collection for a few hundred dollars because of the sheer convenience.
I realize that this is a sensational report, to say the least. However, it really scares me to see the ease with which most people will shrug-off environmental issues completely. Are natural resource and environmental concerns really secondary to military and economic considerations? I don't think so. What's a good economy going to do for us when we can't breath natural air? The public is very quick to accept reports which say, "Keep living the way you are. You don't need to change your lifestyle. Anyone who tells you otherwise is a radical tree-hugger!" (See this John Stossel report.)
I cannot understand how so many educated citizens can ingnore environmental issues, mock them, mock the people presenting them, or even actively fight against them with hopes of preserving The Economy. Yes, this specific report is over the top, but it raises a number of very valid issues (deforestation, extinction, etc.) which simply cannot be ignored. I know it's easy to change the subject (WWF jokes, anyone?), but one day these people may very well regret their overwhelming indifference.
Slashdot Mirror
I hear this all the time. It's dead wrong.
It would be easy to compete with P2P. How? By adding value. Right now there's no incentive to buy music, even DRM free music. You pay, download, and end up with a decent quality recording. With P2P? The same thing, except you don't pay. Why would anyone pay? Because it's the right thing to do? We've already seen that an entire generation doesn't think so.
Instead of suing people or pressing for ISP surveillance, compete. Add value. If there's real value, people will pay.
How could a music distributor add value to an online music store?
The price also needs to be minuscule per song. Precisely low enough that it feels like "nothing" when you purchase. Somewhere around $0.10/song and $1/album. At this price point no one will hesitate to buy something they're unfamiliar with, and people will gladly re-purchase their entire CD collection for a few hundred dollars because of the sheer convenience.
That's competition.
What if Blizzard actually loses? WoWGlider for all?
Could Blizzard keep banning people who used it?
Could the guy keep selling it legally?
I guess crowbars are legal, but breaking into a house isn't...
An non-official English translation of the trailer can be found here.
I realize that this is a sensational report, to say the least. However, it really scares me to see the ease with which most people will shrug-off environmental issues completely. Are natural resource and environmental concerns really secondary to military and economic considerations? I don't think so. What's a good economy going to do for us when we can't breath natural air? The public is very quick to accept reports which say, "Keep living the way you are. You don't need to change your lifestyle. Anyone who tells you otherwise is a radical tree-hugger!" (See this John Stossel report.)
I cannot understand how so many educated citizens can ingnore environmental issues, mock them, mock the people presenting them, or even actively fight against them with hopes of preserving The Economy. Yes, this specific report is over the top, but it raises a number of very valid issues (deforestation, extinction, etc.) which simply cannot be ignored. I know it's easy to change the subject (WWF jokes, anyone?), but one day these people may very well regret their overwhelming indifference.