Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Links Your Rights Online

Row Brews Over P2P Advertising 185

Posted by Hemos
from the commercial-freedom dept.
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.""
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Row Brews Over P2P Advertising

Comments Filter:
  • Yeah Okay (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mfh (56) on Monday November 15, 2004 @11:13AM (#10819926) Journal
    Providing oxygen to illegal downloading? Okay the next time you get in a car and drive on a road, you are supporting drunk driving.
    • by garcia (6573) * on Monday November 15, 2004 @11:17AM (#10819961) Homepage
      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 ;)
      • 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
    • 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.
  • by vision33r (829872) on Monday November 15, 2004 @11:13AM (#10819928)
    I've already gotten Mobile SMS pop-ups.. "It's inevitable.." - Agent Smith
  • How dare they??? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Moby Cock (771358) on Monday November 15, 2004 @11:16AM (#10819956) Homepage
    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.
    • by JeanPaulBob (585149) on Monday November 15, 2004 @11:30AM (#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.
      • by Famatra (669740) on Monday November 15, 2004 @11:58AM (#10820373) Journal
        "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 :).
        • 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.
          • That'll teach me not to hit Preview.
          • 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 re
            • 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.

          • 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.

            Your point is? Most artists don't get a dime from record deals.....

            There are two issues here. The first is that the *vast* majority of music which circulates these networks is distributed without permission. This is a problem because it provides ammunition to the RIAA, et. a
        • That's like calling car gangs who steal Porsche's to order "competitors" to the dealers.
        • So if I shoplift Walmart and sell for half price, I'm a legitimate competitor to Walmart?
    • 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.
    • 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.
    • 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.
    • "How dare they come up with an innovative business model that directly competes with established companies. This isn't a free market here."

      I know you were being ironic, but you're right. From the Wiki [wikipedia.org] on "free market economy":

      A free market economy is an idealized form of market economy in which buyers and sellers are permitted to carry out transactions based solely on mutual agreement without interventionism in the form of taxes, subsidies, regulation, or government provision of goods or services

      bey

  • Router Host Blocking (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 15, 2004 @11:17AM (#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.
    • 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
    • Or just use the Adblock extension for Firefox [mozdev.org]. It is by far the greatest way to block advertisers. With some use of a few wildcard you can browse nearly ad free. One of the more useful extensions, in my opinion.
  • by BalorTFL (766196) on Monday November 15, 2004 @11:17AM (#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...
    • 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.
    • by Ignignot (782335) on Monday November 15, 2004 @11:31AM (#10820101) Journal
      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!
    • 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
    • I dunno, really... I like it more online, 'cause I can use technological solution to solve problems and they work. In Real World I have to watch on the ads, because I can't walk with my eyes closed. I have to listen to ads on radio when it's playing in public places. But in the comfort of my home, on my PC I am almost completely safe from intrusive ads. AtGuard! and Proxomitron remove all and any adverts. The only drawbacks are that the page layout is mangled sometimes when I remove a huge banner and that a
  • by Jacques Chester (151652) on Monday November 15, 2004 @11:17AM (#10819972)
    Never heard money called "oxygen" before.
    • 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?
  • This should be fun (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Timesprout (579035) on Monday November 15, 2004 @11:18AM (#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.
    • 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.

    • by gosand (234100)
      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

      • Not only that, but alot of people don't find anything offensive about what you mentioned. More than most - probably a massive percentage - of people are likely thinking: "So?" when you tell a story like that.
  • Ad problems (Score:2, Insightful)

    by geraldkw (534863)
    It seems like these ads are likely to push everyone the way they are already headed, more towards bittorrent over centralized P2P networks. geraldkw
  • Make lemonade (Score:4, Insightful)

    by FunWithHeadlines (644929) on Monday November 15, 2004 @11:20AM (#10819999) Homepage
    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 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,

    • 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.
    • 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.

      Ma
    • 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 ....
    • 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
    • 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.

      I'd say that people will use whatever works, regardless of advertising. I say this based on personal preference, and past history of consumer reaction to advertising. I really don't know what it is about ads that bothers some of you people so much, but most of us really aren't b
    • A .wmv file that you can't fast-forward, with an URL at the end that you can visit for free, legal stuff. People would download them like crazy, and if they're only 30 seconds or so, there would be little point to trying to bypass them anyhow. A quiz question about the commercial would help make sure someone actually watched it, especially if everyone gets a different question.

      "Watch our commercial, get two free songs." It could work. People aren't going to retain the files, meaning the advertisers would h
  • I'm sorry, but (Score:4, Insightful)

    by madaxe42 (690151) on Monday November 15, 2004 @11:28AM (#10820069) Homepage
    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!
    • ...but I would /kill/ for a government that supports pr0n. The one we have now flips out over a nipple. Hell, I was looking at nipples when I was less than a year old, but then, I don't have the moral sense, as our Fearless Leader (TM) would put it.
  • Ads... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by ZiakII (829432)
    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.
    • 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.

  • by nurb432 (527695) on Monday November 15, 2004 @11:30AM (#10820087) Homepage Journal
    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..
    • "Enough with the 'its all copyright piracy' arguments already."

      Fair enough. The vast majority of it is copyright piracy.

      If, magically, all the unauthorized copyrighted content were to disappear off of Kazaa tomorrow, traffic would virtually disappear, they would no longer be able to collect ad revenue, and they'd no longer have a business model. It's the ad revenue that keeps Sharman Networks (a for-profit company whose founders are very, very rich) afloat, and it's not those Linux distros that's dr

  • 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).
  • by tdvaughan (582870) on Monday November 15, 2004 @11:30AM (#10820095) Homepage
    ...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.
    • 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!
    • 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.

      I believe this is the conversational gambit called a straw man. If, as they claim, their intention is for legitimate file sharing, they would still have good reason to refuse it - do you really think the legitimate users want to deal with that kind of crap looking at them? Like they want the feds to know they download 2 Live Crew mp3s?

      Nice try though.

  • I guess it's a bit like fly posting.
  • 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
    • 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
      • Some P2P apps may be illegal (Napster) whilst others are legal (Grokster).

        Uh no. Napter the site was illegal. Napster the application was just fine.

        • Well, neither really. To be more precise, it was the business practices of Napster the company as executed via how they designed and kept control over their network.

          Since the Napster app is more or less useless without a network that would give rise to liability, I don't think it's entirely inappropriate to lump 'em in together. Napster was basically the whole package.

          Now we have developers making software and avoiding the network, and they're fine. The people involved with the P2P network are still poten
          • You can use the napster client with opennap servers to get the napster experience (albeit on a small scale) and the use of the network is not prohibited by law, though of course any copyright violations are still your problem :)
            • I'm not familiar with Opennap.

              IIRC the Napster architecture relied on centralized servers with listings of what was being shared. Presumably Opennap has similar servers, so as to continue to work with the unchanged Napster clients (though perhaps the servers are on a smaller scale and there are multiple networks). Whoever's running them is in the same position Napster was. And of course users are breaking the law just as much as they were under Napster.
              • Opennap works the same as napster, with centralized servers. The legal issues are the same. But, as I previously stated, it's still not the tool which is against the law here, but the use to which it is put. This is not a CSS kind of thing. The tool is legal unless the way it was created was illegal, not just because it's used for illegal purposes.
                • it's still not the tool which is against the law here, but the use to which it is put.

                  I'd agree for the most part, but I'd be cautious about going too far. I don't think there's a good basis for an absolute statement, just a broad one.
                  • There are probably some things which can only be used for ill, but I doubt it. More likely, there are some things it is unnecessary to use because there are cheaper, functionally equivalent, less dangerous alternatives. No piece of computer software, however, has only ill uses, and supersession is not a good reason to abandon software.
  • Obvious solution (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ajs (35943) <ajsNO@SPAMajs.com> on Monday November 15, 2004 @11:34AM (#10820128) Homepage Journal
    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.
  • Pfff (Score:5, Interesting)

    by SmallFurryCreature (593017) on Monday November 15, 2004 @11:36AM (#10820145) Journal
    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?

    • 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
    • Re:Pfff (Score:3, Informative)

      by yoshi_mon (172895)
      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
    • by Tim C (15259)
      Nobody likes you or your product.

      Then what, exactly, is it that all the p2p users are sharing?

      The problem isn't that nobody likes the product - they demonstrably do - but that now that they can get it for free, a lot of them are going to do just that. Whether that's because they're all protesting against perceived over-charging or not is largely immaterial. There clearly is a demand for the product, just not at *that* price. Whether there would be a demand at *any* price other than free is a different qu
  • 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 ne
    • The two are not comparable. Auto racing does not provide a place for the fans to speed, the money enables the drivers to race. However, putting ads on P2P pays for people to download illegal content. That much is pretty much unarguable. Whether or not that's a bad thing, well, that's another step.


  • 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.
  • by dave420 (699308)
    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.
  • 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
  • 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 (Score:3, Insightful)

    by indros13 (531405) * on Monday November 15, 2004 @12:44PM (#10820929) Homepage Journal
    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.

  • "P2P should be banned because there is no potential legal use for it, therefore anyone using it is intending to break the law."
    Oh, wait, a legal use for P2P?
    "This legal use must stop because it encourages illegal use..."
    • "P2P should be banned because there is no potential legal use for it, therefore anyone using it is intending to break the law."

      Straw man. Not even the record companies are claiming "no potential legal use." They are (correctly) claiming that the vast majority of traffic on the big P2P networks is of pirated material.

      There are plenty of download sites and even P2P networks where strict adherence to creators' rights is observed and nothing is made available without the creators' permission -- in fact,

  • Remember Napster? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Fross (83754) on Monday November 15, 2004 @01:18PM (#10821297) Homepage
    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.
  • Don't forget bundled with P2P applications like kazza you are installing software like WhenU.

    This is NOT NORMAL WEB ADVERTISING in a lot of cases. This is software that normal users install unaware that it is modifying windows and hooking into IE to pop up adverts all the time even when the P2P client is not open, made legal by dodgy clickwrap agreements on the P2P software that no-one reads whilst installing kazza.

    So before everyone says that P2P software companies have the right to earn advertising reve
  • Years ago, my company bought a lot of ad space on Kazaa. My company is well-known and we were advertising a popular CE device that's done very well in the market. Our ad contract was worth well into the six figures.

    The ads did very poorly. The click-through was much lower than it was for the same ads elsewhere on the 'net. We got out of the contract.

    While some of that might be attributed to Kazaa Lite or some other apps that counted ad views but didn't show them to the customers (I'm guessing here;

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

    It's in megabytes... 1's and 0's, not actual weight as in pounds!

    What a dumbass!

The biggest mistake you can make is to believe that you are working for someone else.

Working...