Row Brews Over P2P Advertising 185
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.""
Yeah Okay (Score:5, Insightful)
How dare they??? (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't get me wrong though, ads in P2P networks are a huge pain in the ass.
Re:FP (Score:4, Insightful)
Cash, dosh, greenbacks (Score:3, Insightful)
This should be fun (Score:5, Insightful)
Ad problems (Score:2, Insightful)
Make lemonade (Score:4, Insightful)
"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?"
Re:And you thought the trojans and spyware were ba (Score:2, Insightful)
not that this would actually work (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
I'm sorry, but (Score:4, Insightful)
Ads... (Score:2, Insightful)
And who are they competing with? (Score:4, Insightful)
If it's not the music industry, then you're talking out your ass.
Logical Fallacy??? (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re:And who are they competing with? (Score:4, Insightful)
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:This should be fun (Score:3, Insightful)
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?
Wrap Songs in Ads (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Pfff (Score:3, Insightful)
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:Perhaps this should be encouraged. (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
One more analogy (Score:3, Insightful)
I think you'd be hard pressed, however, to find someone who sees advertising near the copier to be a serious problem.
Remember Napster? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.