BitTorrent Blamed for Matrix2 Downloads

MartyJG writes "The BBC are running a story on how Matrix Reloaded is available via P2P. This time BitTorrent is taking the heat for the distribution - even though there's no company behind it to drag over the coals. The story speculates about the source of the copy, suggesting it's from a film or digital source rather than a cinema-screen-leech." Despite this piracy, the flick has made over $365M already. Including my tickets. Twice.

Comments

It's only a matter of time

[TopShelf]

Without a company to go after, it's only a matter of time before the MPAA goes after a few users a la the RIAA over the last couple months. Considering that studios put oodles more money into a major movie release than a music CD, they have plenty more to "lose" from P2P trading...

So what?

[Stargoat]

This is nothing new. People have been downloading movies for at least three years. Simply because this movie is new and popular, is this suddenly an issue that needs to be addressed? The answer is no. There is nothing here more serious than the downloading of an MP3. In fact, it might even be less of a problem. After all, the price of a movie ticket ($7.50) is cheaper than the price of a CD ($12.00).

So all I can say is: Bah.

Re:Still making their money....

[Doom Ihl' Varia]

I believe The Matrix: Reloades is a special case. Of all the people online I know of several people who paid to see the movie and then downloaded. Yet, I know not a single person who has simply downloaded without seeing it in a theatre. I realize this is only anecdotal evidence and prooves nothing, I am comepelled to believe that wide spread piracy without paying is not nearly as bad as the MPAA would like everyone to believe.

Arr, they be rich!

[gobbo]

"Despite the availability of pirate copies, The Matrix Reloaded has made more than $363.5m at the box office worldwide so far. "

Piracy: a crucial part of viral marketing.

Pirates have been given a bad rap, historically. History is written by the victors, remember. Many of the pirates from the great sailing age freed slaves and the indentured, set up their own kingless mini-republics and functional anarchies, and would appear more modern to us than their other contemporaries.

See this excert from TAZ on pirate utopias or this article or google it. And of course if you're really into the spirit of things, you could goof around reading No Quarter Given.

"They vilify us, the scoundrels do, when there is only this difference, they rob the poor under the cover of law, forsooth, and we plunder the rich under the protection of our own courage. Had you not better make then one of us, than sneak after these villains for employment" - D. Defoe

In other news...

[jdreed1024]

...Ford is being blamed by families of pedestrians who got hit by cars. 3M is being blamed by the RIAA for producing CD-Rs which pirates can used to store music on. Oh, and Sony is being blamed by parents whose kids are dumb because they watch TV all the time.

*yawn*. All things can be used for good or evil. Duh. What would be ideal would be for the BitTorrent folks to publicly denounce this. Or add a little disclaimer to their page (like Apple did with Rip Mix Burn) saying "We do not endorse or support the use of BitTorrent for illegal activities".

Now, here come the cries of "waaah, censorship, you're a fascist, etc". But think about it for just a second. All BitTorrent would be saying is "look, we created this to solve the problem of distributing things like ISO images to hundreds of people. We didn't create this to help you download the matrix. We stronly encourage you not to use it for that". That's not censorship, nor is it selling out. (Unless, of course, they really did create BitTorrent specifically for downloading movies.) They can't actively prevent you from downloading illegal files, but they can tell you that they think it's not such a bright idea.

Napster, Kazaa, and all the others really couldn't pull the "people can download anything from our networks, not just music" without the entire world laughing. Seeing as how BitTorrent has been used by RedHat and others to distribute ISOs, they actually can pull that argument and have it stick. And I really hope the BitTorrent folks don't pass on this opporuntity. Because then the RIAA has two choices: 1) accuse RedHat and others of supporting piracy by encouarging BitTorrent (which, while it would have MSFT dancing with glee, just isn't going to stick in this day and age); 2) suck it up and realize that tools can be used for both good and evil

Re:Slashdotting of BitTorrent

[yppiz]

In theory, yes. Async connections are the realistic spanner in those works...most down more than they up.

BitTorrent enforces balanced downloads. If you are on an asynchronous line, expect to see download rates no greater than your upload rate.

Here's the relevant section from the BitTorrent FAQ:

Q: I don't want you stealing my bandwidth! How can I stop it from uploading?

A: You could hack the source to not upload, but then your download rate would suck. BitTorrent downloaders engage in tit-for-tat with their peers, so leeches have very little success downloading.

--Pat / zippy@cs.brandeis.edu

Re:Slashdotting of BitTorrent

[Feztaa]

That isn't entirely accurate.

Many times, i've been the only leech on a file with 2 or 3 seeds, and I download just fine, even though there's nothing for me to upload.

Also, even when I'm not the only leech, my downloads commonly go 50 to 60 k/s, while the uploads only go 10 or 20. I suppose it all depends on the popularity of the file, though. My connection is capped at 150 down and 50 up. In the past, I've had one torrent that maxed both of those :)

When you read that FAQ entry, it's probably more accurate to say that your client's willingness to upload will allow it to download quickly, not so much the rate at which you are actually uploading.