×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

185 comments

Yeah Okay (4, Insightful)

mfh (56) | more than 9 years ago | (#10819926)

Providing oxygen to illegal downloading? Okay the next time you get in a car and drive on a road, you are supporting drunk driving.

Re:Yeah Okay (4, Funny)

garcia (6573) | more than 9 years ago | (#10819961)

Those evil advertisers! They put ads on webpages that serve files via HTTP! OMFG! They are supporting illegal downloading by supporting HTTP!

We must ban advertising so it stops fueling the rampant illegal downloading.

Actually, come to think of it, that wouldn't be such a bad idea ;)

Re:Yeah Okay (1)

aacool (700143) | more than 9 years ago | (#10820673)

Suprnova has had wierd ads for sometime now - Heightmax being the most common. I guess now ee'll see ads for media from the RIAA & MPAA, with little trackbacks embedded

Re:Yeah Okay (-1, Redundant)

rjshields (719665) | more than 9 years ago | (#10819982)

Okay the next time you get in a car and drive on a road, you are supporting drunk driving.

Cue round of failed car analogies.

True (-1, Redundant)

dolo666 (195584) | more than 9 years ago | (#10819998)

It's true that these anti-p2p groups are about equivalent to a group that is against driving cars, vs a group against drunk driving. It's the lack of precision in the anti-p2p camp that bothers me. They say they are against p2p when they should be against copyright infringement. They attack tools that can be used without malice, just to try and stop the infringements. That's not accurate and it detracts from the purity of their cause, IMHO.

Re:Yeah Okay (1)

vanboy (595995) | more than 9 years ago | (#10820283)

Providing oxygen to illegal downloading? Okay the next time you get in a car and drive on a road, you are supporting drunk driving.

I believe that your analogy is off. The argument being presented in this article is that advertisers are supporting networks/products that allow illegal activity to take place. This has nothing to do with individual action as you suggest with your analogy. It is simply a criticsm of someone (or a group) who is supporting illegal activity with money for advertisement.

Re:Yeah Okay (1)

salvorHardin (737162) | more than 9 years ago | (#10820987)

advertisers are supporting networks/products that allow illegal activity to take place.

Also... SMTP, FTP, HTTP, SMB, TFTP, Telnet, ICMP..etc et cetera ...these also allow illegal activity to take place. I can make illegal content available over IPX/SPX if I really want.

Re:Yeah Okay (1)

LeoNomis (830182) | more than 9 years ago | (#10820546)

By oxygen, they mean money. A network might become victim of its' own popularity and not be able to pay its' bandwidth bills (as with SuprNova in its' early days). The people paying for ads on them are helping prevent this collapse.

Nothing new.... (3, Funny)

vision33r (829872) | more than 9 years ago | (#10819928)

I've already gotten Mobile SMS pop-ups.. "It's inevitable.." - Agent Smith

Re:Nothing new.... (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10819957)

You think that's air you're breathing now ?

FP (-1, Offtopic)

Savant-Ben (829204) | more than 9 years ago | (#10819930)

I thank you

Re:FP (5, Insightful)

Savant-Ben (829204) | more than 9 years ago | (#10819963)

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.

Re:FP (3, Interesting)

RichDice (7079) | more than 9 years ago | (#10820074)

Now if they started inserting ad breaks into a film I downloaded that may be a different matter.

They do. It's called "product placement." E.g. ever notice how (almost) every computer ever shown in movie or TV show is a Mac?

Cheers,
Richard

the have ads in movies = product placement (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10820183)

yeah I saw I, Robot too. but at least product placement isn't taking up a portion of the screen blocking my movie. I have no problems with PP. it's stupid.. but no problems with it. Really good movies will tend not to have PP.

The Wolfkin

Re:the have ads in movies = product placement (1)

Technician (215283) | more than 9 years ago | (#10820717)

Really good movies will tend not to have PP.


And some of the blockbusters have lots of PP. When PP was in it's infancy, the movie industry wanted to get a slice of the advertising dollars. They tried to get Mars as a client for ET. They wanted to have M&M's placement in ET, but Mars wouldn't meet the asking price. M&M's were in the original script and they asked Mars if they wanted to pay for the placement.
Do you remember the candy used to lure out the ET? The success of the name and it's association with the ET began the PP advertising as we know it today.

Trivia quiz answer.. Hershey's Reese's Pieces

Re:FP (0, Troll)

wibskey (193633) | more than 9 years ago | (#10820344)

ever notice how (almost) every computer ever shown in movie or TV show is a Mac?
I've heard that's really because two button mice confuse actors.

But!! (1)

temojen (678985) | more than 9 years ago | (#10821094)

I was actually getting quite annoyed by this last night. Most of the torrent listing sites don't give much information on what each torrent is. I was trying to downoad some free (hopefully legal) information, but most of the available torrents were merely pdf'd printouts of someone else's website or scanned pamphlet with a PDF advertizement for a casino shoved in. Rather like spam, this just increases the noise to signal ratio. I'd rather not waste my bandwidth sharing an ad for a lottery scam with the world.

How dare they??? (4, Insightful)

Moby Cock (771358) | more than 9 years ago | (#10819956)

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.

And who are they competing with? (3, Insightful)

JeanPaulBob (585149) | more than 9 years ago | (#10820100)

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.

Re:And who are they competing with? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10820316)

If their "competition" is the music industry, then their product is something to which they don't own the rights.

You are assuming no parts of the music industry allow redistribution. That is not true.

If it's not the music industry, then you're talking out your ass.

Since when is P2P automatically music-only? I read "an innovative business model that directly competes with established companies" as a way of profiting by leveraging the otherwise-unused upstream bandwidth of end-users to compete with other mirroring businesses like Akamai.

Re:And who are they competing with? (3, Insightful)

Famatra (669740) | more than 9 years ago | (#10820373)

"If their "competition" is the music industry,"

You are wrong, it is an apt analogy. Both P2P and the music industry are 'middle men' / wholesalers whose job is to pair up music creators / artists and music consumers.

If the music companies cannot cope with these new middle men then that is unfortueant, for them. Whether it is unfortuant for artists remains to be seen :).

Re:And who are they competing with? (1)

JeanPaulBob (585149) | more than 9 years ago | (#10820564)

I didn't say that free P2P+ads isn't viable model--I don't really have an opinion on that. The point is that right now, most P2P companies aren't middle-men, because they're not paying the artists whose music they're distributing.

Re:And who are they competing with? (1)

bitingduck (810730) | more than 9 years ago | (#10820684)

The point is that right now, most P2P companies aren't middle-men, because they're not paying the artists whose music they're distributing.

And neither are the major labels. Most artists don't get jack from the CD sales (and many end up "owing" the labels money). If they get anything it's from publishing royalties (paid through ASCAP/BMI).

Do a quick search using "Steve Albini Problem with music".

Also, watch "Bands Reunited"-- look at what all those people are doing. Most of them are actually pretty responsible adults in regular jobs, who sometimes continue to play music as a hobby, but few of them are rich, despite having been quite popular at one point and being part of the back-catalog of the record labels. I doubt that most of them squandered their money from their hits-- they just didn't get paid all that much.

Re:And who are they competing with? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10820855)

"And neither are the major labels. Most artists don't get jack from the CD sales (and many end up "owing" the labels money). If they get anything it's from publishing royalties (paid through ASCAP/BMI)."

So the artists are better off releasing via P2P? (At least they don't end up owing money to their "publisher" that way.)

Re:And who are they competing with? (1)

bitingduck (810730) | more than 9 years ago | (#10820968)

So the artists are better off releasing via P2P?

Maybe. Only time will tell.

Lots of artists self-produce/self publish. Some of them even make money at it, or at least don't lose money, and retain a lot more control over their work.

There were some articles in the LA Weekly a month or two ago about how CD sales are starting back upward, but the top selling stuff is selling less than ever, while the number of things way down the charts that's selling well is increasing, much of it going to people on "boutique" or indy labels.

Re:And who are they competing with? (1)

superpulpsicle (533373) | more than 9 years ago | (#10820864)

Maybe the artist slept with the producer.

Maybe the artist is best friend with the DJ.

Maybe the artist kiss alot of ass.

For political reasons, it's always the same artists being marketed by the music industry. P2P and iTunes give me a chance to listen to the work of so many good hidden artists that were not worthy of producer's time.

It is NOT a competing business model. (1)

AzrealAO (520019) | more than 9 years ago | (#10820211)

If the Artists were approaching P2P Networks with their recordings, and trying to arrange distribution, that would be a competing business model.

That's not what's happening, they're facilitating illegal copyright violations on a massive scale.

Starting to sound like radio to me... (1)

bitingduck (810730) | more than 9 years ago | (#10820566)

How dare they come up with an innovative business model that directly competes with established companies.

It's not that innovative-- it takes an established business model (radio) and brings P2P one step closer to it.

Radio (and TV) sends content for "free" out to anyone with a receiver. The price is that you have to pay in units of time by listening to (or seeing) ads. The buyers of the ads are the real customers, and the listeners are the product.

In the P2P world, users broadcast stuff to each other. Advertisers buy time/space from the makers of the P2P tools. Now all that's needed is to improve the signal to noise ratio so that you pretty much get the thing you were looking for every time (or nearly so). (It could be already there, I haven't gotten around to trying P2P music). Then have systems in place (e.g. Big Champagne) to track what tracks get moved, report that to ASCAP/BMI and pay the artists from the ad revenues.

Sounds like radio to me, but even more powerful, with the possibility of accurately directed micro ad campaigns...It could also track music use more accurately, so small artists with a steady following might get some return.

Hey, I better patent that and anything related to it so I can serve the RIAA with legal notices once they start doing it...

Re:How dare they??? (1)

TheLittleJetson (669035) | more than 9 years ago | (#10821045)

they just decided ads on billboards, tv, radio, web, magazines, newspapers, e-mail, snail-mail, telephone, SMS, instant messaging, sporting events, busses, wasn't enough.

Router Host Blocking (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10819962)

I upgraded my wrt54g to a newer firmware and one of the features in the it has host blocking. I simply added a list of advertisers to the router block. The first one added was doubleclick.net. Mass advertisging I guess will have to be distributed rather than a single company or I will contiue to block single point companies.

Re:Router Host Blocking (2, Interesting)

steve6534 (809539) | more than 9 years ago | (#10820323)

Another easier was would be to simply blackhole the hostnames in your hosts file. (/etc/hosts in *nix or c:\windows\system32\drivers\etc\hosts in widows). Just use the format of : 0.0.0.0 doubleclick.net This will prevent these sites from being contacted

And you thought the trojans and spyware were bad.. (5, Interesting)

BalorTFL (766196) | more than 9 years ago | (#10819965)

...wait until the ads start popping up. Unwanted advertising seems to infect every aspect of our lives. On the other hand, is this a sign that P2P is gradually becoming legitimatized? If major companies start promoting their products on your favorite P2P program, then perhaps the **IA will be less inclined to sue. We can only hope...

Re:And you thought the trojans and spyware were ba (2, Insightful)

krymsin01 (700838) | more than 9 years ago | (#10820025)

then perhaps the **IA will be less inclined to sue. We can only hope...
Uh, no. That just means there is more money out there that the **IAs think is being stolen from them.

Re:And you thought the trojans and spyware were ba (3, Funny)

Ignignot (782335) | more than 9 years ago | (#10820101)

I can't understand how people wouldn't want advertising added to their P2P, their IM, and their cell phone! I personally get many interesting offers every day and I'm sure to buy things that way, because that's how you get the best deals!!! Just the other day I got a movie popup on AIM and it was all about the Polar Express movie and so I immediately went out and watched it and let me tell you it was quite a good movie for me to watch and touching too! Then I was browsing msnbc.com and I got ads for a new Jeep Liberty which now I want to buy because it is trail rated and that is important to me! I didn't realize there was such a thing as trail rating for cars but apparently there is and my current honda civic that I added a sweet spoiler to is simply not going to cut it on the trails. I can't wait until I get lots of offers on my phone and on my P2P because that's basically all I do is txt people on the phone and then download the coolest songs by aviril lavigne, who is awesome. Her and jessica simpson are my playlist right now ever seence I saw jessica's cd in 7-11 where I hang out when I'm txting and downloading things. I'm gunna go now bcause I want to find any P2P clients with advertising, people please respond with links to them! THanks!

Re:And you thought the trojans and spyware were ba (3, Interesting)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 9 years ago | (#10820533)

Well, it will really get interesting when you get advertising built into your operating system.

Your printer is out of paper. A dialog pops up:
Printer out of paper. New paper to insanely low prices at xxxxxxxxx. Click Ok to visit our web page.


You open the system control folder. Before showing your files, it tells you:
Having trouble with your computer? Check out out fine computer books at xxxxxxxxxxx. Click here to visit our web page.


You start writing a letter. A window opens:
Writing a business letter? Buy xxxxxxxxx's Business Letter Assistant, and be more productive and more successful! Click here!

Re:And you thought the trojans and spyware were ba (2, Interesting)

Nogami_Saeko (466595) | more than 9 years ago | (#10820903)

Well, this already happens to some degree - when my Epson printer gets low on, or runs out of ink.

A dialog will appear with a "Clink Here to Buy Ink" button, which oddly enough, takes you right to the Epson online store...

N.

Re:And you thought the trojans and spyware were ba (1)

kuwan (443684) | more than 9 years ago | (#10820583)

If major companies start promoting their products on your favorite P2P program, then perhaps the **IA will be less inclined to sue.

Somehow I doubt it. If anything the RIAA or MPAA will then start targeting companies that advertise on the P2P networks. Especially expect to see this if the Induce Act passes. These companies will be a good target simply because they have money which Joe Schmoe file-trader doesn't have. In fact, the **AA might be able to bankroll their lawsuits against Joe Schmoe by suing the larger companies and that way not even take a loss on the hundreds of lawsuits they file against the little guy.

Oh isn't it all just so disgustingly evil?

--
Sounds like a scam, but it works. [wired.com]
Free Flat Screens [freeflatscreens.com] | Free iPod Photo [freephotoipods.com] |

Cash, dosh, greenbacks (2, Insightful)

Jacques Chester (151652) | more than 9 years ago | (#10819972)

Never heard money called "oxygen" before.

Re:Cash, dosh, greenbacks (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10820067)

I've never heard it called "dosh" before, either.

Re:Cash, dosh, greenbacks (1)

zbyte64 (720193) | more than 9 years ago | (#10820080)

Maybe its a freudian slip...
Im sure taxing oxygen fits into their plan somewhere

Ok that was an unfair remark, on a more serious note
What about open source p2p clients? How will these be plastered with advertisements?
The other thing is they are baseing this off the same arguments, that p2p is only good for illegal stuff, didn't they already rule that wasn't true?

Re:Cash, dosh, greenbacks (0, Offtopic)

BigASS (153722) | more than 9 years ago | (#10820305)

"Illegal file-sharers steal millions of pounds worth of music through these services."

Wow, I've never heard of such strong file-sharers. They must be lifting weights or something.

(Rimshot)

This should be fun (5, Insightful)

Timesprout (579035) | more than 9 years ago | (#10819979)

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.

Re:This should be fun (1)

brxndxn (461473) | more than 9 years ago | (#10820233)

Ya.. I'm all for massive damage on both sides. Now, if we could somehow add Microsoft and Clear Channel to the mix, we could see consumers making progress in the marketplace.

Re:This should be fun (2, Insightful)

gosand (234100) | more than 9 years ago | (#10820405)

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.

Because it works.

We are swaddled in consumerism, what do you expect? Take your kids to watch the latest tripe at the theater, and afterwards drive them straight to McDonalds in your SUV while sipping your Starbucks and talking on your cellphone in order to buy them promotional toys from the movie you just watched. Our society enables that industry to exist. You can certainly complain about it, but what are YOU doing to stop it?

Ad problems (2, Insightful)

geraldkw (534863) | more than 9 years ago | (#10819990)

It seems like these ads are likely to push everyone the way they are already headed, more towards bittorrent over centralized P2P networks. geraldkw

Re:Ad problems (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10820523)

Right, but the common web sources for .torrent files are already covered in ads.

Re:Ad problems (1)

AndyBassTbn (789174) | more than 9 years ago | (#10820580)

While I agree with you, we ought not to forget that finding Torrents and trackers often requires visting websites LOADED with banner ads, and often, automatic spyware/malware installers.

Yes, we already use FireFox and have our security patches installed, so adware, spyware, malware aren't a big issue. (insert snickering here)

Yeah, Kazaa and the like install a metric shitload of adware/spyware as it is. However, the migration to bittorrent could offer a much more dubious alternative, especially when many of the trackers I see nowadays are based in Russia and the Ukraine.

Of course, one MIGHT argue that P2P copyright violators deserve what they get... but that's another arguement for another time....

Make lemonade (3, Insightful)

FunWithHeadlines (644929) | more than 9 years ago | (#10819999)

We all hate advertising, yadda, yadda, yadda. Ignore that. Think of the big picture here:

"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?"

not that this would actually work (2, Insightful)

eobanb (823187) | more than 9 years ago | (#10820043)

Not that this would actually work very well.

Think about all the different peer-to-peer systems in use. Gnutella, BitTorrent, Fasttrack, etc... The people using KaZaA Media Desktop are already seeing ads. Same with Limewire Basic. But all the rest, Shareaza on Windows, probably every implentation of BitTorrent, Acquisition on Mac OS X....how the hell are you going to insert ads into these programs?

...Unless these ads are just going to consist of miniscule files with keywords and a URL in the file name, that dominate your search results? That's more just spamming than anything else. I don't see how that'd be much in the way of an effective delivery method for advertisements. It's unreliable, most p2p clients don't have a provision for being able to click a link in a file name in search results window and send that to your browser.

I'd say most people that are smart enough to use various p2p systems in the first place are probably going to go for an open and free network instead of some proprietary bullshit from some dot-com, and avoid all these ads entirely. Bottom line, unethical, impractical, just plain dumb. Never going to happen.

Re:not that this would actually work (1)

LiquidCoooled (634315) | more than 9 years ago | (#10820159)

I think they mean the adbar at the top of these programs.

I initially pondered about how they get the adverts in, but then I remembered, its in the place where you used to see "XBOX/PS2 CHIPPING $20" or whatever crap it was.

Its not possible directly in BT, but it sure as hell is in the torrent link pages like suprnova, man, those pages are awful, and they have an 8second rotation, the screen jumps around like a hyperactive squirrel.

They don't need to insert ads into BitTorrent (1)

RJabelman (550626) | more than 9 years ago | (#10820366)

Most of the places that host (or link to) .torrent files sell advertising space. I've seen some surprising companies advertising on suprnova.org recently (eg Halifax)

Not the way you think... anyways (1)

phorm (591458) | more than 9 years ago | (#10820404)

This is already in effect in some ways but:

Really, it wouldn't have to work by having ads in the clients, but rather on the network itself. Already we have P2P pollution with a number of misnamed files up for download, how much harder would it be for an advertiser to seed several machines with "Britney Spears - Greatest Hits.mp3" which is really an audio-ad for cosmetics, or "Nude Swedish Maids" which is a video ad for some viagara alternative...

jpegs and other images are even easier to use as ads.

Many P2P programs already have filters and such to stream out the crapulance, but if an onslaught of advertising such as is hitting the email world comes along it will be a lot harder to filter/block.

With Bittorrent ads are easy........ (2, Informative)

afxgrin (208686) | more than 9 years ago | (#10820633)

Just make popups and banner ads appear on the page hosting all the torrent files.

Suprnova.org has been doing this for a while.
And who's advertising on Suprnova.org??

Well, since I'm in Canada I keep seeing ads for the famous U.S. Greencard Lottery (yes - just like the first spam on the Internet.....) and for Zip.ca.

Zip.ca is an online DVD rental company like NetFlix.com - but Zip.ca has side banners on Suprnova.org

I think they also have pop-ups but I'm not sure since I have pop-up blocking on ....

Re:With Bittorrent ads are easy........ (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10820902)

I have no idea if they've got pop-ups or advertising, with mozilla and a big hosts file i see neither :)

Re:not that this would actually work (1)

bitingduck (810730) | more than 9 years ago | (#10820826)

I'd say most people that are smart enough to use various p2p systems in the first place are probably going to go for an open and free network instead...Never going to happen.

That's exactly what all the tech geeks (me among them) said about AOL-- "why would you use that expensive, crippled service that directs you to the content they want to sell you. There are all these great, open BBS's that are free and gushing with cool stuff". People who want it to be an appliance that they don't have to think about in order to get some entertainment from it.

I'm sorry, but (4, Insightful)

madaxe42 (690151) | more than 9 years ago | (#10820069)

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!

Re:I'm sorry, but (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10820163)

BBC puts out porn on regular television? Sign me up! ;-p

Re:I'm sorry, but (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10820946)

PBS affiliates used to lease their signal to pr0n at early morning hours to help offset costs.

Re:I'm sorry, but (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10820457)

Well the next step, according to the article, would be to boycott UK govt products. Seriously, who would boycott advertisers who place ads on p2p networks? Oh no, corporate stranglehold on content via copyright monopoly has been loosened, must boycott advertisers! Im not really connecting the dots here.

Proves that Bittorrent will be the next big thing (0)

Nemesis099 (60955) | more than 9 years ago | (#10820073)

I never really used the P2P clients but I like bittorrent but I have noticed that some bittorrent places are now pay sites to get the torrents. Makes you wonder if these will also become legit because they make money.

Re:Proves that Bittorrent will be the next big thi (1)

halivar (535827) | more than 9 years ago | (#10820161)

Likely as not, you typed suprnova.com or .net instead of .org.

AWESOME fP (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10820079)

and some of the tha7 has lost Outreach are nearly two years

Ads... (2, Insightful)

ZiakII (829432) | more than 9 years ago | (#10820086)

I don't see a reason for compaines to try to use ads in p2p, since most of the users are just teenagers getting music and have little money to begin with, most adults are to afraid to use p2p because they see it in the news with the lawsuits going on with the RIAA, In my oppion i'll just stick with torrents its nice, spyware free and the system works a hell of alot beter and you know the file your revieing works unlike the .mp3s going around on kazaa.

Re:Ads... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10820544)

On the contrary, teenagers have a huge influence on consumer spending. The money may not pass through their hands directly, but they pick where their parents buy their clothes, or what they get for Christmas.

Re:Ads... (1)

NamShubCMX (595740) | more than 9 years ago | (#10821112)

I don't see a reason for compaines to try to use ads in p2p, since most of the users are just teenagers getting music and have little money to begin with

Daddy, can you buy me...

Children nagging is one of the most profitable form of advertising. (Because it's way more easier to buy the stuff to shut them up than to teach them to not be the consumerist freaks they will become).

Awful grammar, sorry, English = 2nd lang.

"support illegal downloading' my ass (4, Interesting)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 9 years ago | (#10820087)

The last thing I got via a P2P network was a free application for BSD.. Which was copyrighted of course..

Don't see anything illegal with that.

The last MP3 I got, was from a band sponsored website ' please download these and do what you want with them , share them.. burn them.. and if you like it come back and buy our album " Their music is ALSO copyrighted..

Enough with the 'its all copyright piracy' arguments already..

And this doesnt even touch the argument that even downloading 'restricted' media may actually be legal anyway in many cases, regardless of what the RIAA/MPAA thinks..

Re:"support illegal downloading' my ass (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10820448)

Look, it's another sample of one who thinks that his behavior is typical.

But don't overlook (1)

TrekkieGod (627867) | more than 9 years ago | (#10820557)

Look, it's another sample of one who thinks that his behavior is typical.

Look, it's another idiot who thinks that because people use a tool for illegal purposes, those who use it legitimately should have their right to do so taken away from them.

Re:"support illegal downloading' my ass (1)

bitingduck (810730) | more than 9 years ago | (#10820783)

Enough with the 'its all copyright piracy' arguments already..

Yeah-- there are plenty of legally downloadable and tradeable things.

There are a reasonable number (and probably increasing) of bands that put downloads on their sites and don't put restrictions, or if they're enlightened put a creative commons "some rights reserved" notice. They're counting on you liking their music and being willing to pay later to get more (and plenty of people will if it's any good).

Surprising stance.. (1)

Bloke in a box (781163) | more than 9 years ago | (#10820091)

It's interesting to see that advert companies are taking this stance. I'm guessing they've realised that P2P is very unlikely to ever be stamped out properly (especially with millions more people every day gaining access to the net) so why not cash in on something that is theoretically 'legal' (until the users themselves share copyrighted material).

The RIAA should buy P2P advertising... (3, Funny)

tdvaughan (582870) | more than 9 years ago | (#10820095)

...after all, an advert saying "We can see what you're sharing" would probably scare plenty of the less clueful P2P users. Whether the P2P networks would accept advertising from them would be an interesting question - if, as they claim, their intention is for legitimate file sharing only then they wouldn't really have a leg to stand on if they wanted to refuse it.

Re:The RIAA should buy P2P advertising... (1)

Paco103 (758133) | more than 9 years ago | (#10820205)

And then the next time the RIAA sues them, they'll be able to say "Well, at least we gave them all the money they need to fight back at us with!"

I'm sure they want a fair fight!

Perhaps this should be encouraged. (1)

91degrees (207121) | more than 9 years ago | (#10820099)

It seems that P2P apps are legal, and they look likely to stay that way. Therefore, corporate ethics states that there's no reason not to advertise on them since supporting a legal service through legal means is generally considered to be legal. There's not a lot that the various 'AA's can do about it. They're the last organisations that have the right to criticise others for only caring about the bottom line.

On the plus side, it does mean that the P2P companies have some worthwhile income. The record industry would have much more sympathy if it claimed that it had a right to a percentage of that income.

Re:Perhaps this should be encouraged. (2, Insightful)

cpt kangarooski (3773) | more than 9 years ago | (#10820697)

It seems that P2P apps are legal, and they look likely to stay that way.

No, they're neither legal nor illegal per se. Some P2P apps may be illegal (Napster) whilst others are legal (Grokster). The reasons for why their legality differs isn't to do with their being P2P programs, it's something slightly different.

The developer of such software can be held liable for the copyright infringement of the users in either or both of two situations:

1) Contributory liability stands where the developer knows of or has reason to know of the infringing activity, and at that time induces, causes, or materially contributes to the infringing activity.

The Sony case held that where a technology is developed that has potential, substantial noninfringing uses, the mere fact that it can be used in an infringing manner isn't sufficient to show knowledge.

However, the Napster case held that where the developer has actual knowledge of the infringement and the knowledge requirement is satisfied.

Grokster, following both Sony and Napster, pointed out that the actual knowledge must exist at a time when the material contribution is made, or else there is no duty by the developer to avoid such contribution. Since their software is designed in such a way that by the time they receive such knowledge they can no longer do anything about it and are no longer contributing to it, the developer is safe -- if he has carefully limited his involvement with the P2P network. Napster was too closely involved with their network, and thus were contributorially liable.

Grokster -- which I should point out is the weakest of the cases cited here -- also opined that mere software development without involvement as to the network wasn't a material contribution.

2) Vicarious liability stands where a developer has the right and ability to control whether infringement occurs, regardless of whether he has knowledge of it, and where he has a direct financial interest in the infringement.

Sony is not applicable to this form of liability, as the Napster case pointed out. This is because knowledge is not a factor.

Again, what might protect a developer is the lack of a right and ability to control whether infringement occurs. Napster, which could ban users and files, clearly did have such right and control. Coupled with the premise that their interest in the infringement was to draw in users who would eventually pay or be advertised to, Napster was found liable.

Most P2P developers are paying attention to the fallout of Napster to avoid the pitfalls that did it in. Those pitfalls still exist, and thus great caution should be taken since you cannot blithely assume any given P2P app is itself legal to create and support. Its architecture and your business practices are important.

You Can Always Tell the Beeb... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10820108)

...by the use of the word "row."

Obvious solution (4, Interesting)

ajs (35943) | more than 9 years ago | (#10820128)

So the obvious solution is for media companies and studios to start building P2P broadcast stations that produce such high-quality entertainment that a) it can generate huge ad revenues and b) it drowns out the illegal stuff... right?

Why they should do this:

1. They're not restricted in terms of media. They can ship any audio, video, text, software, etc. media that the "viewers" can open.
2. They have a leg-up on illegal files because they can provide several stable download points (perhaps even using something like Akamai) that make their files faster to download.
3. There is no uplink lag
4. Uplink equipment cost is trivial by comparison with a broadcast or even cable station.
5. Ad revenues can be tied to more reliable measures of the viewer base than with broadcast or television. Neilsen would love this, as would advertisers.
6. You get to leap-frog HDTV and go to better digital formats long before HDTV telvisions have saturated the market.

There are more, subtler advantages, but I think any Hollywood MBA worth is diploma should be able to see them.

Re:Obvious solution (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10820474)

So the obvious solution is for media companies and studios to start building P2P broadcast stations that produce such high-quality entertainment that a) it can generate huge ad revenues and b) it drowns out the illegal stuff... right?

They could also broadcast without ads for a small download fee. Lots of downloaders (including myself) would pay a small sum for every download if the quality and the download speed is guaranteed.

I don't live in the US, but there are a few US shows which interest me and I don't want to wait months until it reaches the country I'm living in and don't want to wait for the DVD either. I want my content now and I'm willing to pay a moderate fee for it. Millions of downloaders paying little sums for a show can result in a hefty revenue.

I think this is the future of television: direct downloads of shows for interested parties. Small fee, no ads.

Re:Obvious solution (1)

ajs (35943) | more than 9 years ago | (#10820538)

They could also broadcast without ads for a small download fee.

Then it wouldn't be a true P2P network. I'm talking about something like Gnutella, not a proprietary download service (that's been tried... and failed).

P2P is just so much more resilient and costs so much less in terms of bandwidth that I can't see anything else flying. Plus, the goal is to drown out the illegal sharing with quality, legal content. That requires sharing over the same networks as the illegal stuff.

I think this is the future of television: direct downloads of shows for interested parties. Small fee, no ads.

I think the pay-TV model is dead, but it could come to pass that Cable companies (now that they pretty much own the residential Internet business, at least in the US) would decide to host shows the same way they carry pay cable channels like HBO or Showtime.

Pfff (5, Interesting)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 9 years ago | (#10820145)

What is this guy smoking? The music industry got its head so far up its ass they just can't see that the world has changed.

Not that I ever seen big companies put ads on P2P sites but if they do it is a sure sign that the music industry is now considered worthy of being ripped off by both consumers and other industries.

Lets face it. File sharing is good business. ISP's and telecoms make money off it. Recordable CD/DVD makers earn from every burned game/movie/cd. Burner makers profit. HD makers profit. Modem makers profit. Cable companies making the cables being rolled out to support our ever increasing data needs profit. Streetmakers profit because cables go underground.

Everybody is making money of filesharing except the music industry and now even totally unrelated industries are finding ways to make a buck out of it. It makes sense for a mobile phone company to advertise to music file sharers. Kids who don't spend money on overpriced cd's DO spend it on SMS packages.

Music industry wake up. Nobody likes you or your product. Get with the times or die. When the first cars arrived I bet the horse industry held similar pleas and nobody cared back then either.

Want to beat filesharing? I got a very simple solution. Get rid of pre-pressed cd's. Put 1 big central computer in each record labels basement wich contains all their songs ever recorded. Put smaller computers hooked up to the net in each point of sale. Give it a few terrabyte cache with the best sellers. Put up several terminals for people to browse the catalogs and sample songs. On request burn or upload selected songs to the buyer. Songs in the cache cost no extra bandwidth and HD space is cheap. Songs downloaded cost peanuts.

Every point of sale will have an infinite stock and be able to sell to every type of music lover. No longer problems with over or understocking. No stolen cd cases.

A simple business model and one the point of sales people love. They have been suggesting this for a long time and several have tried.

But the music industry doesn't want it. It prefers to cling on to the old model. Some horse cart makers turned to making horseless carriages and survived, some didn't. Do we really care about the losers?

(mod parent up) Re:Pfff (1)

sjwaste (780063) | more than 9 years ago | (#10820272)

That's the free market solution, and may I say, I agree with you.

The problem is, larger industries, recording included, tend to favor market intervention and spend a lot of money lobbying Congress to enact it. Rather than seeking to capitalize on an obviously good business model, they want to stick with what they know and try to get some laws passed that will support their ways.

Personally, I think 99 cents a track is a slap in the face to the consumer, because that's still $12-15 an album (and some full albums are good from beginning to end, not just two tracks and a lot of filler). At that price, I might as well go buy it and get the case, liner notes, higher quality recording, etc.

Re:(mod parent up) Re:Pfff (1)

16K Ram Pack (690082) | more than 9 years ago | (#10820949)

I buy most of my CDs for small amounts off Ebay (like £3-4), unless they are fairly new, in which case the difference is too small. Ebay has really done it for me. In the past, I'd go into second hand record shops and pick things up. With Ebay, you can search for what you want, and there's a very good chance you'll find a seller.

I still haven't bought a download, because in the main, it's a crappy deal. Something like 79p/track when a whole album including media, case and materials AND in CD quality costs about £9.

Make it something like 40p, and I'll start considering it.

Re:Pfff (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10820453)

If no one likes what they produce, why do so many steal it?

If it was worthless large numbers of people would not steal it...

Re:Pfff (2, Insightful)

jimicus (737525) | more than 9 years ago | (#10820629)

Hate to say it, but this is exactly the kind of logic the **AA have been using for the last few years.

It breaks down because, as any businessman will tell you, the number of people prepared to pay £X for a product is a subset of the number of people prepared to pay £(X-N). How much they want the product is of secondary importance.

When N actually hits X (ie. the product is free), the number of people prepared to give the product a try is huge. However, that doesn't mean that the number of people prepared to buy the product at full price has gone up. In fact, if there's any competition in the market, a lousy product may actually be harmed by this because it's easy for the customer to see that the product is a con at full price.

Re:Pfff (1)

ajs318 (655362) | more than 9 years ago | (#10821014)

There's a simple way around that which would allow any content-creator to be paid for their work. All that is required is a secure way to arrange small monetary transactions. It works like this:
  1. Band announce that they have an album ready, and will release it to the world as soon as £X has been raised in pledges.
  2. Punters pledge a fixed amount of money each -- no more than they'd be prepared never to see again if the worst happened -- which is held in limbo until the next step is completed.
  3. Either the target is reached, the album is released and the money goes to the band; or the target is not reached, the album is not released and all monies pledged are refunded.
After the release of the album, copies could be made available for paid download for a nominal fee {which would go straight to the band}. Since the majority of people don't actually begrudge bands the pittance they get under the present regime {it's just the fatcat middlemen we can't stand}, the system ought to work OK.

Re:Pfff (2, Informative)

yoshi_mon (172895) | more than 9 years ago | (#10820932)

Music industry wake up. Nobody likes you or your product. Get with the times or die. When the first cars arrived I bet the horse industry held similar pleas and nobody cared back then either.

As a matter of fact...

In England at the time of the automobiles debut the horse and carriage industry was so dismayed that they forced a law though parliament that required anyone who was driving an automobile at the time to have someone walking in front carrying a red lantern.

Of course the law itself was cloaked in a lot of sanctimonious bs about safety. But obviously it's real reason was clear, to make the option of driving an automobile so horribly inconvenient that nobody would buy them.

Well obviously this set England's own automotive technology back and eventually was repealed after it became clear that the automobile was here to stay. Still goes to show that history has a way of repeating itself.

Logical Fallacy??? (2, Insightful)

THESuperShawn (764971) | more than 9 years ago | (#10820184)

If advertising on P2P networks is 'oxygen' for piracy, does that mean.....

Advertising on Indy cars encourages drivers to go 200+ MPH?

Advertising on NASCAR cars encourages to only turn left (except for two times a year)?

Advertising in adult magazines encourages people to do everything naked? Ok, that one may be stretching it, but you get my point......

Advertisers want the best bang for the buck. It's only a sensible business model.

Just as Indy wasn't created as an outlet to teach people to speed, P2P networks were not created (well, most of them) to allow people to Pirate.

People do speed, people do pirate software. Evil people will do evil things, regardless of who the advertiser is.

I mean, come one, do you really think that stupid Joe Camel guy was encouraging kids to smoke? I think a half naked lady is more encouraging to a 13 year old than a dromendon with a phallic symbol for a nose.

Can I pay to remove the ads? (1)

jmcmunn (307798) | more than 9 years ago | (#10820270)


So can I pay for the software I am downloading from the P2P network in order to not see the ads at all?

Oh wait...nevermind.

What are the chances that anyone is going to follow an ad in a P2P program? I mean it is probably just as pointless as the links people (like myself) put in our sigs on Slashdot. It's more or less a waste of time 99.99% of the time. It's just something to do for me...I expect no return on it. And neither should the ads in P2P programs, in my opinion.

Re:Nevermind paying, ignore it! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10820798)

I agree fully. Don't know about anyone else, but when I'm downloading, I minimize the window so I can do other things.

Total exposure time to ad: 5 seconds.

Whoop dee doo. Businesses: Advertise all you want. I'll just ignore it.

They are paying for their adverts to be seen (1)

Sai Babu (827212) | more than 9 years ago | (#10820340)

not supporting the web sites.
Jeez Louise.
Since when did advertisers give a shit about supporting the company carrying their adverts?

Bigger Mouth Than It Deserves? (2, Interesting)

Tetsugaku-San (717792) | more than 9 years ago | (#10820371)

Another example of the entertainment industry having a bigger mouth than it deserves.

Just how the hell do they manage to shout so LOUDLY!! The games industry is worth ten times that of the movie industry, yet we never hear the gaming companies moning that P2P has taken away 85% of their business unlike the whinging pathetic record labels and movie houses

Screw em, the sooner the big 5 record labels and God knows how many hooooge movie companies go bust and leave room for the small inovative, value for money quality establishments the better.

Wrap Songs in Ads (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10820437)

Why not wrap a tune in a simple ad wrapper with a viewer app that shows you the ad then drops the tune, movie, or pic on your desktop. Sure you could ignore it and sure someone could make a tool to unwrap it but many many people would just watch the ad. If the ad was well focused and for a item of real interest to the user, they might event want to watch it. Good ads work you know. Think about it here is a song with an ad for tickets to the artist's next concert a link to a site with paraphernalia, live feeds or chats, being as the file would be free, legal and make money for the artist I do not see why people would not willingly select them.

Ha! (1)

dave420 (699308) | more than 9 years ago | (#10820727)

Seeing as every corporate entity would try to stick an advert on the Pope's ass if they could, having a go at people for advertising where their adverts will reach people is abject hypocrisy. Sore losers, the lot of 'em.

what? (1)

chasingporsches (659844) | more than 9 years ago | (#10820858)

people still use P2P programs? wow. i don't know a single person who does, mainly because of the RIAA danger, and you can't find what you want anymore... it used to be "Search, click, download" and you're instantly getting what you want, its impossible nowadays on P2P networks (except bittorrent, but i hate the sudden criminalization of it) to get a single song you want in less than half an hour, and if you do, you might have the RIAA sending a legal notice to your door. i think people are shying away from p2p and moving to more legal methods. look at how many people are using rhapsody, napster, and itunes music store. i haven't used a p2p app to download anything copyrighted in over a year, and neither has anyone i know. my friends and i used to trade MP3's, but now we make trips to the local CD store together. maybe because i'm a musician, i realized after the whole P2P hayday with RIAA that its not worth it. but to say that P2P is more widely used now than ever, and growing? i find that hard to believe.

This is like SCO. (1)

rice_burners_suck (243660) | more than 9 years ago | (#10820926)

But the owners of paid-for download services are accusing them of "providing 'oxygen' for companies that support illegal downloading."

I believe the press release read:

By leveraging innovative technologies, content providers streamline compelling illegal enterprise solutions.
Yes, that is correct.

Owners of paid-for download services provide a benefit to the community in the same way that SCO is an ethical company.

One more analogy (2, Insightful)

indros13 (531405) | more than 9 years ago | (#10820929)

Actually, this practice would be more analagous to advertising near a copier in a public library. While there is room for fair and legal use, I'm sure some (or even many) people copy more than the law allows.

I think you'd be hard pressed, however, to find someone who sees advertising near the copier to be a serious problem.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...