p2pnet’s ’substantial’ advertising earnings
Hi all:
I’ve just finished sending an email to someone who thought I was about the same age as her children —- if only 
—- and in it, I clipped a couple of paragraphs from an article I posted in January.
Then I went on to look at my p2pnet email.
Every once in a while a story provokes a vicious attack from a corporate entertainment cartel supporter. The writers never have the decency (courage?) to identify themselves, instead hiding behind anonymity. But I’m pretty sure I know who at least one of them is, and he’s been slagging me on- and offline for a long time.
The latest nasty-mail was triggered by the story on Tanya Andersen’s triumph and among other things, it accused me of cynically focusing on stories on RIAA victims such as Tanya so I can increase my “substantial” (according to the email) earnings from advertisers.
Actually, I survive on a month-by-month basis almost wholly on support from a person who wants to remain anonymous. The vast bulk of my not-vast income is from that source and without it, ads notwithstanding, p2pnet wouldn’t be here and I wouldn’t be able to look after my family or pay the mortgage.
Back on track, I thought I might be a good idea to run part of the article I referred to earlier, so here it is. I wrote if after compaints about the fact I sometimes include posts on ‘celebrities’.
It goes like this »»»
1 – There isn’t much point in continually preaching to the converted so I started running items on the likes of Britney and Miley hoping to pull in new readers, especially younger people, who may not have come across the kind of problems discussed here —- for example the way students are being victimised by the money hungry corporate music and movie industries; the way the cartels are invading classrooms to quite literally brainwash young children, and so on. But these are far from being the only issues and every time I see something I think is relevant, I try to do a story or stories on it. Are the Miley-type posts bringing in new readers? Under every story there’s a count of visitors and the numbers speak for themselves. Do these new people see other content? I don’t know, but I sure hope so.
2 – The stories generate very small amounts of income. Words underlined in green are linked to advertisers and when they’re clicked, I get a small amount. I don’t know what yesterday’s came to, but for the four days prior: 14 January $7.08; 15 January $3.50; 16 January $12.67; 17 January $6.79. But at the end of the month, it can amount to a couple of hundred dollars, or more, and it all helps. Because I’d bet 99.9% of the people who come to p2pnet wouldn’t work for what I and my family live on. [NOTE: I’ve since cancelled the text ads mention here.]
3 – As I’ve said before, p2pnet isn’t a business: it isn’t entrepreneurial and was never intended to become a full-time occupation. But that’s what it is today and I count myself really lucky to be running this site. Sometimes I get up in the morning wondering why I bother, but everyone has off days and mostly, I feel privileged to be doing something which may be making a difference, no matter how small. I know ideas and stories which appear here for the first time are picked up elsewhere, sometimes by the mainstream media. p2pnet is rarely mentioned as the original source, but that’s standard and since the object of the exercise is to get the message out, it doesn’t matter.
When I started p2pnet in 2002, it was one of the very few sites which constantly and consistently covered the depredations of the RIAA, MPAA, et al, and tried to cover the victims and their stories.These days, even the lamescream on and off-line periodicals write about what’s happening. They often get it wrong and their stories are all too frequently slanted in the direction of the labels and studios. But it’s a start.
Now don’t get me wrong; I’m not claiming p2pnet is the reason this is happening. I know it’s not. But I’ve tried to be part of the movement to counter the non-stop bullshit and outright lies pouring in a constant stream from the movie and music industry cartels, and which are regurgitated as ‘fact’ by the corporate press, very significant numbers of whom are owned and/or controlled by the very same cartels.
And finally …
Another reason I’ve started running some of the celebrity stories is: I’m a recovering drug addict and alcoholic. I started using when I was 13 and stopped when I was 45.
So when I write about Britney or Lindsay or Amy or anyone else in their boat, I hope I’m also making kids who may think it’s glamorous to be like them, think twice.
Has the time has come for me to stop publishing p2pnet? Have I strayed too far off track and off topic?
It’s hard work and I’ll be 66 on February 6 and perhaps I should cease and desist, as I’ve been asked (ordered
) to do by several companies.
I still have two court cases to deal with and they both spring directly from stories published in p2pnet. And there’s another lurking in the background.
I have no idea when they’ll be resolved or what the outcomes will be. But I’m no different from the people pilloried by the entertainment industry, with the music labels to the fore. I’m being sued by a very rich company and a very rich individual, and the third case involves an equally rich organisation.
They have adequate resources. I don’t have any.
However, I do have an 11-year-old daughter [she's now 12] who’s being educated at home and thanks to p2pnet, she’s learning a lot about how the world operates, and that it’s important to stand up for something you believe in.
Emma is showing signs of wanting to do some writing. She’s working on a book and she’s already contributed one piece to p2pnet, with another on the way.
“p2pnet has veered so far away from what it used to do well that now it’s become almost a tabloid and close to being a joke,” [said the post, quoting one of the critics], “it’s like reading an issue of Tiger Beat magazine.”
No one is forced to read about Britney or Amy or Miley. The stories are easily identified by their headlines. Don’t like them? Then don’t read them. There are still plenty of others of the type which have been appearing in p2pnet since Day One.
I’m sorry [the comment posters] feel the way they do. But that’s what freedom of choice and freedom of expression are all about. Without the ability to choose, we all might just as well be dead —- or be content as unthinking corporate cash cow consumers.
End of sermon
Anyone who’d likea little more on my “substantial” advertising earnings might want to click here.
Cheers! And thanks. And all the best …
Jon Newton
.
.Stumble It!
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It’s really easy!Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details. Download here.
August 17th, 2008 at 11:56 am
*2nd post, don’t know what happened to the first one*
Thank you, Jon, for continuing with this website, despite the difficulties you have had and are continuing to have with it.
PS: I gave in and clicked on the screen cleaner yesterday, and oddly enough my monitor doesn’t look any cleaner. I’d like a refund, please!!
August 17th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
I’m not too interested in the Britney stories or the like. Somehow they just don’t appeal to me. So as you mentioned in response to whomever emailed you, I do as you mentioned in this article. I ignore them and move on. They are well enough marked that you can tell without opening them. To me they are a waste of time. Still, I understand that my tastes are not everyone’s. You’ve made mentions before of view counts and those seem to be the ones that drag in the views so someone is interested in them.
Seems odd that the complainer doesn’t just go fire up his/her own blog and be done with it. Then everything that gets shown on the net, is with his approval so unless by choice, there will never be anything s/he needs to read that jars his/her sensibilities. If you go to others sites not your own, don’t expect it to fall right where you live. I can’t really think of very many places, public media, magazine, newspaper, tv channel, that does that with my own looking and viewing. It’s the nature of the world. If someplace disagrees with you enough to jar those sensibilities, then go pick you another place. It’s just that easy.
But then if you wanting to just bitch and moan about it, then the message gets lost fairly quickly. It becomes evident very fast what the real deal is. I don’t have much patience for that sort of thing. There are enough idiots on the net without me assisting them in spreading their dubious joy. Say what you gotta say and if it don’t suit you, move on.
August 17th, 2008 at 6:36 pm
Hateful twits will always be hateful twits. p2pnet’s good reading. period.
ignore the twits, and keep up the good work
-at
August 17th, 2008 at 9:18 pm
I like the stories on celebrities.
As a person thats into high-end tech and low-end gossip, P2Pnet is staggeringly well-tailored to my news needs. I don’t know where i’m going to go if this falls through, so i’m going to go ahead and click on every one of the adds on this page right after i post this.
August 18th, 2008 at 12:18 am
Jon: Your site is one of the few that I read every day because I find the information on it to be interesting and thought provoking and therefore valuable. Like some of the above posters I may choose not to read about the celebrities, and this is a choice that I can make as can your critics. If they don’t like some of your articles they can read other ones, or if they don’t like the site they can go read something else (Fox News, maybe?) entirely. What kind of masochistic loser wastes time and causes himself apparent discomfort by forcing himself to read a site that he doesn’t like written by a man he obviously doesn’t respect? And why should we care what he thinks?
People’s legitimate gripes should be entertained but you needn’t waste your time responding to troll mail unless it’s for the purposes of public ridicule, such as The Pirate Bay’s series of legal letters and responses.
August 18th, 2008 at 6:12 pm
I thought that people retired at 65. Except for high-roller Ed McMahon, who was going broke at 85 because he was no longer working.
August 20th, 2008 at 6:26 am
“Every once in a while a story provokes a vicious attack from a corporate entertainment cartel supporter.”
I can’t imagine why this supporter would even bother reading your site, let alone posting…unless of course, they are on the RIAA payroll.