> >> As file sharing intensifies, it will tend to replace the
> >> commercial channels, and not augment them, because
> >
> >Unless, of course, file sharing itself becomes a commercial channel, and
> >there's a major paradigm shift in the business model of the recording
> >industry. Either way, it will be the dominant distribution channel of the
> >future.
>
> I don't think this is possible. The only thing that p2p can do good is to
be
> impossible to control and regulate. If you want to distribute music free,
you set up
> a central server: fast and cost effective for both the provider and the
customer. If
> you want to sell music using DRM, you *must* use a central server.
> I think labels will never embrace p2p, they will just have to learn to
live with it.
I think given the chance most people would migrate back to a napster-like
centralized server system, as they're faster and more efficient. I don't
believe consumers will ever tolerate DRM, it's an unworkable idea flawed on
many levels. But if the labels decided to back a filesharing *service* which
offered significantly better performance than say, Kazaa, with features like
validated files (but still mp3s as we know and love them), filters and
anti-virus protection, and faster downloads, and charged a monthly access
fee, they could create a viable business model to compete with the free
filesharing apps.
--
"I remember another gentle visitor from the heavens, he came in peace and
then died, only to come back to life, and his name was E.T., the extra teres
trial. I loved that little guy."
- Reverend Lovejoy, The Simpsons
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 |
|