Hacker News Reader

Comment by karzeem | Hacker News Reader

When people pay for music, they're paying for the convenience of the delivery, not for the music itself. For the average user, it's worth a dollar to avoid the relatively clunky wilderness of Limewire and BitTorrent.

View on HN

Hmm...I'm afraid I don't understand why do you considering using P2P unconvenient. Cos here in Russia it is the most comfortable way to get music. Internet music market is only a few $millions for now. But even if it will grow, I doubt that people will drop P2P. Cos it easy as open StrongDC++ in your metropolian network, type an artist name and download all songs at the price $0,0004 per mb. Maybe I'm wrong and you have different situation in US. Just my 2 cents.

using p2p depends on what other people are sharing. I want to download some older, lesser-known artists: Damien Jurardo, Stavesacre, and the list is pretty slim. If you want something popular and recent like Linkin Park, no problem. But if your off the beaten path, it's kinda hard to find what you want

Agree. But it is too tight market, don't you think? Labels generally generate profit from popular and recent artists.

But they also have old stuff stored away in a warehouse somewhere. P2P's don't. At least not currently.

For non-techies, iTunes is a better deal than BitTorrent. There's no hunting for torrents, managing wonky downloads, dealing with slow clients, etc.

Maybe the popular peer-to-peer options in Russia are more mass-market than the ones in the US.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com