As a distribution protocol, Bittorrent, like any P2P is simply a protocol. In that sense this is akin to branding (and owning) any other application layer of the net, like MIME or SSH or FTP or... Even HTTP.

Only mentioning that because every time you write about this topic, someone invariably jumps on Twitter to point out that this is a protocol. Yes it is. It's a protocol someone is trying to re-brand and own and charge for. This is an interesting development.

And as David Lowery rightly points out, BitTorrent hasn't invested in any musicians at all. Rather the opposite.

And since everyone has been encouraging musicians to share over Torrent for free, why are they now encouraging to share for a fee? What changed? I say, this is an elaborate brand repositioning.

... and what is it that prevents a band from using the protocol, charging a fee, and not paying BitTorrent? Is the protocol itself actually owned by BitTorrent?

*facepalm*

The models picked look very good, very in-the-moment-this-is-the-look-right-now, though, so props for casting. Even if Ms blank-stare-I-have-Long-hair stares at us liked she's vaped out on valium.

Adorable, and I children will love it, as will adult animation fans like myself. It's very nicely done.