Comments on: 100% legal downloads !!!

By: osvaldo

osvaldo — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 02:55:21 +0000

taks

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Mon, 23 Jan 2006 00:44:09 +0000

UseNext is the best bloody service out there!!!!

this is the worst report on the planet. for starters half of the software up there is not P2P you fool. And secondly just because u have to pay for usenext doesnt mean its bad. Thats the worst logic in the world.

This is the stupiest arguement on the planet, and should be taken off the site immediatly!

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Mon, 21 Nov 2005 01:07:58 +0000

Is there anywhere where I can get a list of LEGAL music download sites?

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sat, 26 Mar 2005 02:19:58 +0000

/http://www.usenext.com happens to be in your adverts here.. how lousy is that!!

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Thu, 10 Mar 2005 10:08:01 +0000

Yea but that wouldn’t happen cause they have to elect if the ads are adult.

But here is what does happen:

What if you where and advertiser and publishing sites called your product a scam where waisting your advertising dollars by the click?

“Hey everybody click on that ‘27/7 downloads’ ad to the right and look at what a scam it is. Go ahead waiste their money. Have a laugh at their expense and my profit!!!”

Gotta love ads by google. $$$
Why not just always put out articles that are anti- (whatever the highest paying words are) and then submit your site to the google news feed to get piles of traffic, and therefore thousands of clicks on your $1/click ads?

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Thu, 10 Mar 2005 08:05:51 +0000

If I run a site called ‘girlsclothing’ and I advertize sales etc., I’d be mighty ticked if Google flashed porno ads on my site.
I’m sure there is something I could do about that.
If not, and the banner ads are googles choice, I would not use google.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Thu, 10 Mar 2005 07:43:45 +0000

The posts above show what a broad overstatement this article is. Some of the sites may be scams, but not all. Also, the people who wrote this article advertise for those sites. They blame it on google, google blames it on the advertiser, the advertiser blames it on the merchant. Where has accountability come into play? Remember, google splits it’s cut with all of the publishers (p2pnet, p2pforums, slyck, zeropaid, ect…). The advertisers pay over $1 a click. Who’s making the lions share? If it takes 19 visitors to purchase a 20 membership from these sites there’s only $1 left for the merchant assuming the advertiser isn’t an affiliate (which they of course are). That leaves $19 for the publisher and google to split. hmmm.

Either you’re one way or another, but you can’t be both. Or can you?

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Thu, 10 Mar 2005 05:58:10 +0000

All the banner ads on the p2pnet site lead to what has been listed as “general rogue p2p sites”, as reported in this article.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Thu, 10 Mar 2005 05:52:04 +0000

Also a banner ad for usenext.com

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Thu, 10 Mar 2005 05:49:43 +0000

So is 247 downloads

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Thu, 10 Mar 2005 05:42:36 +0000

The site listed as MP3advance has a link on the P2PNet homepage.