The interest taken by Microsoft in P2P technology is based not only on the idea of providing a fast alternative to the problem of downloading large files, but also on delivering a deadly blow to piracy.

Everybody admits that P2P has the potential to solve the problem of large file distribution, but when it comes to illegal download networks, MPAA and RIAA go berserk.

Aside from being a legal alternative, Microsoft also promises that Avalanche will be much faster than BitTorrent. So it would seem that illegal downloads won't stand a chance.

On the other hand, unlike Avalanche, BitTorrent has already proven its capabilities, not to mention the users' attraction towards illegal downloads. And what can be easier than to use P2P for illegal downloads?

If Microsoft really wants to push Avalanche on the market it should focus more on costs and less on technicalities. And if you have to choose between being targeted by RIAA and paying a small amount of money, it's obvious you will go with the second option.

The main question is not how will the service work, but how much the access and the right to download a certain file will cost? I'm afraid that Avalanche will confirm the famous statement of General Motors's director who said that if cars had developed in the same way as Windows did, we would have required special roadways. The same goes for Avalanche, who knows what hides behind a P2P concept signed by Microsoft.