In reality, you are the one using completely random and made-up ideas in order to make points that you don’t even understand yourself. Trying to project your flaws onto me just shows how much of a sore loser you are.

As for your second paragraph, every point is flawed:

“Sometimes the two things can overlap, like a CD is promotion as well because people tend to stumble across them either in a shop or at some ones house etc., …”

According to this, if it is stumbled upon, it is being promoted. However, this can also apply to P2P. The difference is physical vs. online circumstance, but the end result is the same regardless of its form.

“… but in the case of p2p there is no overlap and p2p is only a distribution medium, …”

Hypocrisy: this clause contradicts your previous one.

“…it is only for hosting files, …”

After ten years of this, you think P2P involves hosting files. Ha!

“… and is redundant because there are other means of distribution, …”

Name four: only then will P2P can be even considered possibly redundant. Your next clause is meaningless if do not mention even one, and of course, a website does not count at this point of your assertions.

“… and inferior bnecuase those other means allow the artist to tie in distribution with promotion – …”

And what makes you think that an artist cannot do that with P2P?

“… in a p2p distribution scheme, revenue will most often go to other businesses and not the artist.”

And of course, according to you, spending excessively on marketing will not cause revenue to go to other businesses….However, that money must go somewhere, and that somewhere is other businesses. Your point goes either way and is completely meaningless.

“A website is a promotion medium, but the web infrastructure is also good for distributing a product.”

A website is not a promotion medium: it can be used as a promotion medium. But this does not imply that P2P cannot be used for the same purposes.

“Tying the two things together, distribution and promotion, is the best approach for an artist who is interested in advancing his career and not just pursuing a hobby.”

But this applies to usual marketing activities, not just something for artists to make a career out of a hobby.

Your response is just another demonstration of your incompetence.

Sometimes the two things can overlap, like a CD is promotion as well because people tend to stumble across them either in a shop or at some ones house etc., but in the case of p2p there is no overlap and p2p is only a distribution medium, it is only for hosting files, and is redundant because there are other means of distribution, and inferior bnecuase those other means allow the artist to tie in distribution with promotion – in a p2p distribution scheme, revenue will most often go to other businesses and not the artist.

A website is a promotion medium, but the web infrastructure is also good for distributing a product. Tying the two things together, distribution and promotion, is the best approach for an artist who is interested in advancing his career and not just pursuing a hobby.

2. I will repeat what DrewWilson wrote: true P2P will not go down due to network attacks. You just embarrassed yourself by misreading his point.

3. HTTP links may change. Hash links and torrent files are portable and static. Since you repeated your unproven assertion, I will repeat my unanswered question: how is P2P redundant if the only other method you have even mentioned is to create a website?

4. Have you ever visited a P2P site? I’m assuming that you have, but only to a few that are similar. It is obvious that a single link is not the only bit of information if it were made by an artist. You also seem to be hostile to anybody that is able to make ad revenues instead of spending money on ads or other excessive marketing schemes. Surely a largely populated site would not stay online without paying bandwidth costs.

5. Here is a list of interdependent points that you have not proven:

“Cory Doctorow is an interesting and maybe uinque case ….”
“Nobody else has been able to replicate his formula…”
“… motivational speakers who have some central theme that the audience can all agree on.”
“Though I’d argue his blog is more of a platform for his success than is p2p, I bet he’d agree…”

Cory Doctorow’s case is obviously not unique in the sense that he chooses to use P2P. Your only attempt to prove your point is by stating that nobody else chooses to use P2P, which is a false statement. Not all P2P users agree on the same thing, which is something you seem to neglect. Finally, a blog is just a convenient spot for one to write thoughts and other personally related matters, and in this case it is auxiliary to utilization of P2P, not a direct cause to success.

6. Again, how is P2P redundant if the only other method you have even mentioned is to create a website? HTTP links are just strings pointing to particular online locatins, but if the links change there is no guarantee that they will resolve at all. Your point is weaker than shit.

7. Utter speculation, and an illogical one at that. If the artist is starving, the implication is that the artist is not popular at all. How an artist will immediately monetize a newly created website that nobody knows about, under this circumstance, is practically improbable to do. How a non-popular artist will become popular when nobody has heard any of the music is quite impossible.

8. Yeah really. I have also disproved all your assertions more than he has, but you seem to deny any of that; unfortuneatly, denial does not mean nonexistance of reality.

The dictionary definitions of the word ‘promotion’ in this context are

“the act of furthering the growth or development of something;”
“encouragement of the progress or growth or acceptance of something”
“a message issued in behalf of some product or cause or idea or person or institution”

And a dictionary definition is standard in English. Since P2P can be used to promote music, regardless of the intended functions the protocol was designed for, your assertion is invalid.

9. It is true that technology will not do everything that it is commanded to do, but that does not imply that its basic functions can be utilized in order to accomplish a specific task. In other words, you can’t fathom how to utilize P2P in order to promote some music, because it was not intended to do so; neither were websites, but it is common knowledge how a website is used to promote music. What can be concluded is that you are just a lazy thinker: you can’t go without reusing parts of other things that already exist.

10. Business people make decisions considering risk, not chance. Based on your point, you prefer higher risk than letting hypothetical portals with hypothetical untoward advertisements make revenue. But the problem with your point is that you assume all portals are identical, malicious, and problematic.

“… it is not and can never be promotion in and of itself.”

That is just like saying complex numbers are useless and imaginary. Perhaps the imaginary part is valid, but complex numbers are crucial in our everyday lives, whether you like it or not.

“Calling p2p promotion is calling an apple an orange”

That is the worst attempt at an analogy ever. In case you are stupid, apples and oranges are both fruit.

You are just trying to mislead people due to your own lack of knowledge and/or wisdom. Get with it.

2. True in theory, but only if people seed all the time. A reliable web host will keep the files there to all takers 99.99 percent of the time in my experience, and if there are no other seeds, I don’t have to leave the box that has bt installed on all the time to make sure theres at least one seed (me) and run up my electricity bill – which can easily be as much if not more than the chump change I pay for websites.

3. Http liks can be sent around too – an online version of word of mouth. p2p is redundant and useless to an artist as a distribution model.

4. True the labels aren’t and never were the best people to work with, but thats beside the point, portals don’t do shit except leech. If someone goes to an artists website the artist can show them something for sale, or get money from adsense, whatever. If someone goes to a portal looking for your music all they will see is a link next to some crap ad for porn or pyramid scams, that IS NOT showing off or promoting your work btw, and they make money while you don’t. The people making money off of p2p are leeches.

5. Cory Doctorow is an interesting and maybe uinque case because there’s this complete package – his work about free culture and file sharing is distributed via file sharing and his audience are file sharers who like sharing files and want to hear his positive message about file sharing. Nobody else has been able to replicate his formula except for motivational speakers who have some central theme that the audience can all agree on. Though I’d argue his blog is more of a platform for his success than is p2p, I bet he’d agree…

6. Again, p2p is redundant as distribution and useless to an artist because you can give files away from a website too. Links to a website can be shared too, in fact more easily because they are not censored by social media websites.

7. If you are just starting out, you don’t need much space or bandwidth and the site will cost you less than one DVD costs per month. If you are a starving artist you can monetize your website and starve less, if you are popular the site can more than pay for itself. Again, p2p is completely redundant and useless for an artist.

8.Oh really? p2p is useless for an artist because it is redundant for distribution and is does not function as promotion in any accepted definition of the term, anywhere in the world.

9. A concert is not distribution, neither is radio. Here we get to the core of the confucion, people misleading artists into thinking that p2p is promotion. It’s not. It’s a distribution model, one that can’t be monetized by an artist, but portals, software companies, ISP’s, search engines and venture capital investors sure are making money off of it, money the artists should be getting but aren’t.

10. Web hosts provide a serice to the artist, search portals just take the money and run. At least there’s a chance with web distribution of free content for the artist to create some kind of revenue stream, p2p tends to direct that revenue somewhere else. It’s an added barrier between the artist and his audience, and for a lot of reasons might even be harmful to artists. At the very least, as distrinution, it’s redundant to other technologies that the artist can turn into a way to not starve. Calling p2p promotion is calling an apple an orange, it is not and can never be promotion in and of itself.

The money that should be going to artists is going to businesses and corporations, even more so than when it was only the record companies stealing from artists. p2p is useless to an artist as promotion and redundant as distribution, and artists all over the world are being misled.

That is perhaps the richest sentence I’ve ever seen you write to date.

1. Saying your music is available on P2P is publicity in and of itself.

2. If a website goes down (hacked, DDOS, etc.) all the files too go down. True P2P is never down.

3. P2P is effectively an online version of word of mouth. Hash links and torrent files can be sent around and it’s not limited to a p2p portal.

4. I’d rather a p2p portal take money from ad revenue which happens to show off my work rather than a record label steal my rights and steal all my revenu from my actual work. Record Labels – particularly major record labels – end up being legalized theft and burglary of artists. Major record labels often end up being a much larger parasite to an artist than any p2p ad could ever possibly dream to hope to achieve.

5. You can also sell your work on top of a free distribution model such as p2p. Cory Doctorow is just one example of this.

6. A vast majority of file-sharers view p2p as try before you buy. They are actively encouraged by other p2p users to pay for work they download. It’s free publicity that can easily replace the multi-million dollar expense of marketters. It’s socialized free publicity that popularizes the artist. “Hey, I downloaded some cool music by ‘x’ artist, you should go download this person’s work too!”

7. Even if p2p is redundant, anyone in marketting should advise against putting all your eggs in one basket. Setting up a site and expecting peopel to come to you is extremely oblivious to how online marketting really is. A website needs to be promoted as much as a file on p2p needs to be promoted. The difference is that most of the time, a file on p2p is free rather than paying for hosting costs through a provider. If your a starving artists, this is huge. Expanding into alternative distrubution mediums is a great way to get your name out there.

8. I’ve debunked you twice on your point that p2p is useless for artists and I’m doing so a third time in this post.

9. Saying p2p and websites are different is actually beside the point in the first place. A radio and a concert is different. Does that mean you have to choose one? No. Most artists don’t do just one distribution method,

10. A website costs money and the artist, chances are, loses money on owning a site in the first place. Ads vs hosting companies. Someone is making money either way. Would you argue a web host is a leech too because the web host makes money?

I’m not sure why you refuse to accept the fact that p2p can be useful to an artist, but the fact is, p2p is indeed useful to an artist or any content creator for that matter.

Humanly readable information online is usually in the form of web pages. In other words, users discover the existence of the objects usually by accessing the page’s information. But the website is not owned by the artist, so it does not contain whatever appears in personal web pages and therefore this does not mean P2P is useless for promotion when using an auxiliary web page.

Your argument is pointless, since you have been asserting that artists must create a website. Don’t try to change your claim such that you try to discard its weakness.

“… and relying on other users to seed and reseed and stay on line is not a good idea, …”

No. Seeding is part of P2P; the term ‘file-sharing’ is self explanatory.

“… a good web presence is far more reliable”

However creating a new website is not the best method of promotion and a poorly generated one is not at all reliable.