Altnet gets into p2p sharing
p2pnet.net News View:- You have to give it to Brilliant Digital Entertainment and its associate Altnet, the father of spyware.
They don’t give up.
The two, together with their partner, Kazaa owner Sharman Networks, want to be players in the corporate entertainment industry and they’ve tried every trick in the book to be accepted as such.
However, the record label and movie studio cartels continue to avoid the trio like the plague and Kazaa is, in fact, currently being sued by the music industry in Australia.
BDE and Altnet recently tried to persuade p2p operators to license their TrueNames DRM by in effect threatening to sue them if they didn’t.
Entertainment lawyer Jay Flemma said at the time, “I believe they [Altnet] are grossly overreaching in attempting to turn the world of IP into the wild, wild west and effectively mug these companies by trying to make them pay for something … which they do not have the rights to defend or prosecute.”
TrueNames was called a lame duck by Freenet founder Ian Clarke.
Now, “Altnet Launches First-Ever Advertising Fund Dedicated to Sharing P2P Revenue,” it says in a statement.
It and BDE seem to have abandoned their fruitless attempts to get into bed with the members of the Big Music record label cartel, EMI, UMG, Sony BMG and Warner, and are now instead waving V2, Artemis, Epitaph/Anti, Side One Dummy and Palm, Simmons/Latham, and Koch Media.
They are, promises Altnet, “significant independent label customers” who are now involved in a fund, “where they will share the revenue generated from advertising that appears in the user interface of popular Peer to Peer applications”.
It doesn’t say which popular p2p apps will sport the Altnet adware.
Still, this is better than the spyware on which Altnet cut its teeth.
March 1st, 2005 at 1:10 pm
why shouldn’t artists and indie labels be allowed to profit from the p2p networks their music has helped create? is altnet to be condemned for attempting to aid indie labels and artists to connect with their audiences and help them profit from p2p distribution??? commercial radio has never paid artists and the multi-national conglamorates have conspired to exclude access to the airwaves by paying the stations exhorbitant amounts for airplay. as an artist and indie producer i am happily looking forward to receiving my first check and hope that other p2p services that profit from sharing will also see the wisdom of sharing their profits.
March 1st, 2005 at 2:10 pm
” why shouldn’t artists and indie labels be allowed to profit from the p2p networks their music has helped create? ”
You ARE right, except for one small problem that is repeatedly glossed over.
What do YOU mean by “Indie” ?
A little googling around will show you that many so-called “Indie”
labels are actually owned by the MAJORS. This means that, as has
been pointed out ad-nauseaum that the ARTIST STILL GETS SQUAT.
True non-RIAA-affiliated indies will be blocked from P2P in the same manner that they are blocked from radio airwaves now. Pay the piper or don’t get heard.
That is the true goal of the RIAA.
March 25th, 2005 at 10:53 pm
If the conspiracy theory is true about the record companies, think about how much greater the folly would be to sign up to altnet. They are joint venture partners with a company nobody want to admit owning or controlling.