Your Ad Here Your Ad Here
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 15

Thread: Commercial P2p Networks?

  1. #1
    I was just wondering.

    If a company, say Blockbuster Video for example or Time Warner, were to publish a P2P program that charged US$20 per month for unlimited downloads of their media libraries...would anybody subscribe?

  2. File Sharing   -   #2
    Old Fella
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Godzone
    Posts
    803
    What instead of getting them before Blockbuster for free - ahhhh NAH!

  3. File Sharing   -   #3
    Simply answer: yes. This would, of course, be dependent on the quality and selection offered, as well as a reasonable subscription price. Don't think it is likely to happen would have to be come from studios, not Blockbuster.
    My Best Quality Movies My Live Concerts [url='http://rapidshare.de/files/22222332/My_Shares.xls.html[/url]

  4. File Sharing   -   #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    12
    Well you can already subscribe to a dvd rental service that sends dvds via mail for about $20 a month or so. You get unlimited rentals and no late fees you just order a number of them at once and return some or all of them when you've watched them and they send you more.

    Downloading from Blockbuster would be easier than mailing them back and forth. As far as it being a P2P, it would be more like a B2P (blockbuster 2 peer) program. It wouldn't be a true P2P, strickly speaking.

    As far as subscribing, ya I'd look at it if the downloads where fast enough. I couldn't rent four new releases for that much at the store.

  5. File Sharing   -   #5
    Illuminati's Avatar Simple Bystander BT Rep: +7BT Rep +7
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    2008 European Capital of Culture
    Age
    32
    Posts
    2,758
    Originally posted by Nost@12 January 2004 - 16:05
    Well you can already subscribe to a dvd rental service that sends dvds via mail for about $20 a month or so. You get unlimited rentals and no late fees you just order a number of them at once and return some or all of them when you've watched them and they send you more.
    Damn, I could buy DVDs for the British equivalent of that price

    Why rent them for a month when you can just buy them for the same (or slightly more)?


  6. File Sharing   -   #6
    Originally posted by Illuminati@12 January 2004 - 10:27
    Why rent them for a month when you can just buy them for the same (or slightly more)?
    Nost is referring to Netflix. The $20 per month is not per DVD but the per month subscription fee. The fee entitles u to unlimited DVDs, the only restriction being that u can only have four at a time. When ur done with one, u mail it back and when they recieve it, they mail u the next DVD on your want list.

    Good service. I definitely recommend it and I had this type of model in mind when I wrote my first reply.
    My Best Quality Movies My Live Concerts [url='http://rapidshare.de/files/22222332/My_Shares.xls.html[/url]

  7. File Sharing   -   #7
    As far as it being a P2P, it would be more like a B2P (blockbuster 2 peer) program. It wouldn't be a true P2P, strickly speaking.
    I was thinking of something like a combination B2P/P2P. For example, Blockbuster hosts Torrent Trackers and Seeders while client software is designed to utilize the Subscribers bandwidth to help propogate content throughout the network and to track the distribution of the material.

    This would, of course, be dependent on the quality and selection offered, as well as a reasonable subscription price. Don't think it is likely to happen would have to be come from studios, not Blockbuster
    Actually, I would think the only way the service would work would to NOT be run by Studios or Record Lables. Copyright holders would pay the P2P company a one-time fee to list their media on the network and then recieve a percentage of the P2P's subscription fees based upon how much traffic their material generated across the network. For Example...The network has 3 total songs available for downlaod. One from Mettallica, one from John Denver, and one from Zamfir. The 10 people subscribed to the Network wind up downlaoding Metallica 6 times, John Denver 3 times, and Zamfir 1 time. If the monthly fee for use was $20, then at the end of the month Metallica would recieve $120, John Denver would get $60 and Zamfir would wind up with $20. I would think a revenue sharing model structured like this would generate a wide variety of content and be the fairest way to apportion the subscription fees.

    Consider this. There are around 3 million users utilizing the FastTrack network at any given time. The total amount of users is probably around 7 million or so but let's say 10 million for math purposes. 10 million subscribers at $20 per month would work out to $200 million in subscription fees each month or $2.4 Billion a year. If you were the copyright holder, wouldn't you want your media to be listed and get a piece of that $2 Billion pie? And as a subscriber, wouldn't you like a service that was legal, had no fakes, offered swift downloads, wasn't cluttered with 20 different versions of the same media, and was virus/spyware/adware free?

    Damn, I could buy DVDs for the British equivalent of that price. Why rent them for a month when you can just buy them for the same (or slightly more)? 
    Why pay to rent instead of own them? I'll tell ya why. You can spend your $20 and get one DVD this month or you can spend the same money to get unrestricted access to THOUSANDS of DVD's. As long as you pay the subscription fee, it's basically like owning all of the media offered.

  8. File Sharing   -   #8
    These way of distributing media will be bad because:
    • The files offered would probably contain Digital Rights Management Technology
    • The files offered would be of inferior quality compared to copies avaliable on P2P networks
    • Several people (Including myself) would not be happy having a company utilise their upload bandwith to gain profit. The user should be entitled to "leech" access to content or be re-imbursed for their bandwith

  9. File Sharing   -   #9
    Originally posted by wacomcduff@12 January 2004 - 12:23
    This would, of course, be dependent on the quality and selection offered, as well as a reasonable subscription price. Don't think it is likely to happen would have to be come from studios, not Blockbuster
    Actually, I would think the only way the service would work would to NOT be run by Studios or Record Lables. Copyright holders would pay the P2P company a one-time fee to list their media on the network and then recieve a percentage of the P2P's subscription fees based upon how much traffic their material generated across the network.
    I probably wasn't being clear. My impression is that this isn't likely to happen based on the fact that the only way the studios would allow this type of transfer is if they were directly in control. Me thinks past behavior precludes ur plan. :pirate:
    My Best Quality Movies My Live Concerts [url='http://rapidshare.de/files/22222332/My_Shares.xls.html[/url]

  10. File Sharing   -   #10
    Originally posted by ThePlasticSurgeon@12 January 2004 - 21:01
    These way of distributing media will be bad because:
    • The files offered would probably contain Digital Rights Management Technology
    • The files offered would be of inferior quality compared to copies avaliable on P2P networks
    • Several people (Including myself) would not be happy having a company utilise their upload bandwith to gain profit. The user should be entitled to "leech" access to content or be re-imbursed for their bandwith
    1) I'm not familiar with Digital Rights Management Technology so am unsure how this would negatively impact the hypothetical service I am talking about. Please explain nore about this.

    2) Actually, the quality of the files offered would be as good if not better than what is currently available on P2P networks. These files would be authorized by the copyright holders themselves and be provided by the P2P company. They would not be files created by the users of the network. It is in the best interests of not only the copyright holders but that of the P2P company to offer the highest quality products.

    3) The P2P company would only utilize your bandwidth when you were running the client application just as the current P2P apps do now. Most likely, the P2P company would only utilize a portion of your badwidth also. You are already paying your ISP for the bandwidth whether it is used or not so why would it be such a big deal if a for-profit company managed that bandwidth while you were connected to their service so that all the subscribers had high download rates? You are doing just that right now and for FREE...what would really change in the end? If the P2P company were to provide ALL the badwidth required to support a robust network and insure high downlaod rates, the cost would most likely kill the business model. The key to getting copyright holders to offer their media for download is allowing them to gain the most return on their investment. High overhead costs of providing all the bandwidth needed would limit the value to the copyright holders. The idea here is to funnel as much of the subscription fees to the copyright holders as possible.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •