And yet, here you are trying to generate some discussion on what's wrong with the format. Isn't it great that you potentially have a voice in it instead of being fed the content in a way you have no control over besides consume or not-consume?
I am pretty sure Steve Jobs has went on the record as saying something to the effect of "Streaming music services will never be something the general public cares about."
Granted, his/Apple's position could have changed on that but maybe they just don't see any threat from these streaming apps, are not working on a competitor to it, and didn't block is because they aren't afraid of it.
If you want to look at a game company that understands its customers and how to make money, take a look at Valve & Steam. It's amazing how easy that make it to impulse-buy new video games by offering frequent sales where you get huge value packs of games for as low as $5-$10.
Reading over the quick blurb on the WSJ, it actually contains a quote from the "head of a P2P trade organization" which tells people to keep their software up to date for security features. The quote by Arts+Labs guy includes "But if you insist, he says to take the time to understand how the software you downloaded works."
I definitely agree with the general idea of this post, but I don't think the WSJ article is really that big a piece of FUD. It seems more to be saying "P2P could be used to share things you don't want to share if you aren't careful." I have a hard time not agreeing with that stance.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Jim J.