Hollywood Looks to BitTorrent for Distribution

daria42 writes "Vinton Cerf, who wrote the original TCP/IP protocol and is currently chairman of ICANN, said this week he had recently discussed BitTorrent with at least two interested movie producers. 'I know personally for a fact that various members of the movie industry are really getting interested in how to use the Internet--even BitTorrent--as a distributed method for distributing content,' Cerf said. 'I've spoken with several movie producers in the last month.'"

Comments

Hang on a minute...

[TripMaster Monkey]

From the article:

Hollywood is anxious to embrace BitTorrent as a method of movie distribution, according to the father of the Internet, Dr Vinton Cerf.

But I thought that Al Gore invented the Internet...

Re:Hang on a minute...

[d34thm0nk3y]

allright, thats the slashdot i know and love. None of this encouraging enlightened discussion crap. I, for one, welcome back our trollish first posting overlords.

mostly joking given the actual content of the link...

It will happen, but not for a long time.....

[Greg Wright]

Notice that the first link under that article in the 'related links'
section is, "BitTorrent hubs close after ISP raid". In that article is
says, "The music industry's anti-piracy unit claims 50 file-sharing
[BitTorrent] hubs in Australia closed....". Seems like the
entertainment industry's one hand doesn't know what the other is
doing. That is the biggest problem as I see it; trying to get all the
content holders, content producers, content creators and talent all on
one page. Until they do that none of them, nor us, will be able to
benefit from what the Internet has to offer as a new channel for media
distribution.

Will it be easy? No. Will it happen at all? Eventually. In the mean
time it is going to be very painful indeed. Two steps forward, one
back.

Re:It will happen, but not for a long time.....

[turbosk]

Is anyone concerned that MP/RIAA would want to know their "enemy" better in order to discover its weaknesses and close it down more effectively? I can picture the discussion with Mr Cerf, and the movie guy is nodding and taking notes furiously, saying, "yes, do go on".

It's the same reason some men read Cosmo magazine- it's like getting behind the lines and into the mind of the adversary.

Re:It will happen, but not for a long time.....

[snuf23]

There is a big difference between closing bittorrent sites that act as trackers for pirated materials and using the bittorrent protocol for distributing MPAA's approved legal content. Just the same as Blizzard using bittorrent to seed patches for World of Warcraft while not condoning piracy of their software over bittorrent.
It would be beneficial if the MPAA, RIAA or others embraced using p2p such as bittorrent because it helps to legitimize p2p. This doesn't mean protection for pirates, but it does mean protection for the protocol (i.e. we won't see legislation forcing it to be killed at the ISP level).

Re:It will happen, but not for a long time.....

[podperson]

I see no contradiction.

If Hollywood chooses to use BitTorrent to distribute films (legally) but fights to shut down illegal distribution (via BitTorrent) this is no different from it distributing films by video and shutting down video pirates.

BitTorrent is a technology, not a legal or moral imperative.

Re:It will happen, but not for a long time.....

[GweeDo]

I thought it was for the pictures?

Re:It will happen, but not for a long time.....

[hazzey]

Closing down BitTorrent sites has nothing to do
with "one hand not knowing what the other is
doing."

That is like saying police seizing illegal guns
is a case of "one hand doesn't know what the
other is doing." Just because they are going
after the illegal portion doesn't mean that there are not legal ways.

The fact that BitTorrent sites are so popular
for downloading illegal movies shows that they
could be popular for downloading legal (DRM'd
of course)movies.

Re:It will happen, but not for a long time.....

[barawn]

It would be beneficial if the MPAA, RIAA or others embraced using p2p such as bittorrent because it helps to legitimize p2p. This doesn't mean protection for pirates

Actually, it could. Part of the problem with BitTorrent is the fact that downloading necessitates uploading - so even if you have a legal right to obtain a copy of something, in order to do it, you have to upload to other users (who may or may not have the right to have it). By embracing BitTorrent as a protocol, they're removing one of the possible objections - namely, they can't claim that a person downloading something from BitTorrent illegally is committing copyright infringement thousands of times - just once.

(Of course, this presumes that they won't recognize this problem and build it into some license agreement crap thing, which they probably will. It also doesn't avoid the objection that just because I have a legal license to one copy of a copyrighted work, and a fair right to make one copy of that copy, doesn't give me the right to make a copy of a different copy.)

Re:It will happen, but not for a long time.....

[FreeUser]

There is a big difference between closing bittorrent sites that act as trackers for pirated materials and using the bittorrent protocol for distributing MPAA's approved legal content.

Sure there is, and that isn't lost on anybody.

The point is that the recording and movie industries have attempted to buy legislation banning the technology itself. This would have made using bittorrent (or any other peer-to-peer technology) illegal even for legitimate means, such as distributing Linux iso images. Now these same industries, who tried their damndest to ban the technology completely, are embracing it. That is news, and as you say, protects the technology, not those using the technology to violate copyright.

Re:It will happen, but not for a long time.....

[snuf23]

Yeah whatever. The RIAA didn't make up the term. It's been used for well over 25 years in the software community to refer to acts of digital copyright infringement. Hell, plenty of "warez" groups have played up the pirate theme.
Saying that something isn't illegal when it is by current law is just stupid. Copyright infringement is illegal under US law and most other countries. Stating that does not mean I agree with the RIAAs actions or the law itself.
P2P is not a protocol, it's a term used that covers a number of protocols. Bittorent does need protection, or rather needs to be shown as a legitimate (i.e. has significant non-infringing usage) just as much as the VCR did in the '80s. Why? Because the RIAA and MPAA etc. have been trying to make P2P protocols and applications made illegal. Showing significant non-infringing usage goes a long way to helping make sure we never see laws affecting P2P.

Re:It will happen, but not for a long time.....

[hazee]

Isn't that just the same as with video recorders? First they tried to ban them, and when that failed, they figured out a way to use them to their advantage to make huge profits.

Door of no return?

[fembots]

The thing is, if any movie producers/directors decided to distribute their works over the internet, they might not be able(allowed) to go on big screen anymore.

So any promising producers might not take up the offers, and those less-promising ones might only attract a lower level of interested audience.

We have seen few success stories in online music distribution by bands, but the mainstream still hasn't moved yet.

Having said that, anything has to start somewhere.

Re:Door of no return?

[RM6f9]

One would think the success of "The Blair Witch Project" would keep cinema owner/distribution chains from shooting themselves in the (collective) foot with such an arbitrary decision. Meanwhile, were I a producer eager for eyeballs and had confidence in my work, 'twould seem that making $2-$3 per viewing/download would create more profits for me than whatever I'd get once I got done paying the conventional distribution chain - and, I'd receive them faster.

Re:Door of no return?

[LocoMan]

I know that for movies/shorts to be eligible for an oscar nomination they must be premiered on the big screen first (or at least that's how it used to be), so in the animated shorts it automatically would disqualify anything that was shown first on the internet.

Personally I'd like this, but I don't think I'd make much use of it... I like DVDs as they are (I'd welcome lower prices, of course), and the ones I buy I mostly buy for the extras, and personally there are lots of movies (specially the ones with lots of CGI) that I always prefer to watch first in the theater.

My take on this is that it'll go like it's going with music now, as you say, some movies (specially niche ones) will find this method of distribution better, but I don't think it'll be too succesful on a mainstream level because I'd bet most people will just like to watch movies in a simple way (plug DVD, hit play or go to the theater), and won't want to bother with TV outs, playing on a computer and the like. Music (itunes, for example) has had success mainly because there's no alternative to MP3 players when you want to listen to music and have so much to select from on a portable player, and buying music off an online store isn't any harder than ripping a CD and copy to the player that would be the only other (legal) alternative.

Re:Door of no return?

[shark72]

"The thing is, if any movie producers/directors decided to distribute their works over the internet, they might not be able(allowed) to go on big screen anymore."

On the contrary; many directors have gotten their start by creating films which they've distributed online. My grandmother was in one such film that was an online sensation for a time (if you never caught it... trust me, you probably wouldn't want to see your own grandmother in it) and which opened a few (small) doors for the director. And, a few years back, BMW recruited Joe Carnahan, Tony Scott, and John Woo to direct some short films that were distributed on BMW's web site. This didn't hurt their careers. Online film distribution is a huge industry, and has been for quite a while. Just spend a few minutes browsing ifilm and you'll see what I mean.

Music video legitimately released via bittorrent

[garagekubrick]

We released a video we made for Portland band The Decemberists to bittorrent on purpose. We've had much greater impact from that than the few times MTV2 aired it.

Wired article details how and why.

For everyone concerned some four weeks later it's been an enormous success.

Cheaper than a movie

[fwice]

If it costs less than the $10 i have to pay for a movie ticket, plus the $5 for a soda and $4 for a small popcorn, then I think it's a definate plus.

Went to see sin city last night. $20 for two tickets, $4.50 for a soda, and $4 for a popcorn. Not exactly a cheap date anymore.

Re:Cheaper than a movie

[Monkelectric]

Not to mention standing in line with a bunch of hot teeners remembering when you could get girls like that with your fat g/f at your side ... >sigh(laugh, its a joke)

Re:Cheaper than a movie

[houghi]

Not exactly a cheap date anymore.

Meet her inside and save 10USD.

I personally do not see why going together to a movie should even count as a date. Go to a nice non fast-food restaurant and actually talk to each other.

Re:Cheaper than a movie

[That's Unpossible!]

Meet her inside and save 10USD.

And lose any chance of a second date...

I personally do not see why going together to a movie should even count as a date.

It doesn't. No one just goes to a movie for a real date.

Ever heard of "dinner and a movie"?

Just for This Thread

[fuct_onion]

Can we call Bittorrent a 'Decentralized' Network? The word 'distribute' has too many uses in this context; my head hurts.

Next VHS?

[a_greer2005]

The MPAA has done 180s before when it comes to tech, look at their complete change of face on the VCR and video industry after the famed surpreme court case.

hmm

[Sv-Manowar]

Ironic, how the industry turns to one of the tools their were claiming ruins it.

It's a smart move by the movie business, they are expanding into the online market, better late than never. They just need a way to make sure to stop piracy, as shown with the iTunes mp3 encoding.

Bittorrent for Movie Theater Distribution???

[bagboy]

Why not? A topic of discussion before, how about movie theaters participating in a p2p "theater only" version of bittorrent? They could efficiently distribute large digital film content in an economical manner.... Wouldn't this help legitimize the whole p2p debate?

You know what they say

[nutznboltz]

If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.

IPV6

[Anonymous Coward]

Wouldn't this be better accomplished with IPV6 multicast?

Re:Music video legitimately released via bittorren

[garagekubrick]

I should've mentioned - the band are not on a major label.

The album and video came out in the same week. A week later the band found themselves without the support of a major label in the Billboard Top 200 and in the top 10 at iTMS and top 20 at amazon.

They don't even have to do anything!

[Anonymous Coward]

Just stop suing the sites and bam, they will distribute it for you! It's amazing.

I have to confess I am rather skeptical

[Lead Butthead]

The net in general has been around for quite some time; much of which the music and film industries has met it with open hostility. In particular P2P applications thus far has met with nothing but legal hostility. That said, I am suspicious this is but a ploy to lure out some of the application authors to be crucified at a later date.

Up with bittorrent in the mainstream

[tantalus]

This would be terrific for showing that bittorrent is worthwile for small and large business models in which legal content is served. In Canada, one major cable ISP, Shaw, uses traffic shaping to heavily throttle bittorrent since they see it as a tool for pirates, but more mainstream uses of bittorrent would put pressure on Shaw to ease up on the throttling.

Re:Up with bittorrent in the mainstream

[tokabola]

You could try using a different port, since traffic shaping looks for activity targeted a specific ports only. If you're using the default Bittorent port you'll likely be slowed, but pick a port that's commonly used for something else that they don't throttle. For instance, if you're not using bt while also playing Quake III, set your Bittorent client to use port 27960. Most ISP's don't throttle the gamer's ports because that's the only reason a lot of people get broadband to begin with.

Tommy

Dubious

[Daath]

Well, I don't know about you. I think BitTorrent is very cool and has it's uses, especially amongst those who don't have multiple redundant fiber connections. But when game companies (Blizzard for example) and movie companies start to distribute their wares by way of BitTorrent, that makes me wonder.

Now I myself don't pay by volume, but I do know some who do! Are we supposed to pay for their wares, and then we get to download, sometimes slowly because BitTorrent downgrades users that don't share because of closed ports/firewalls etc.

We pay them, but we have to distribute it for them?!

Big companies, who probably have big a** internet connections themselves, should make their wares available for direct download by standard HTTP and/or FTP...

Well, maybe that's just me.

Re:Dubious

[Future Man 3000]

I'll bet that if P2P becomes a viable commercial transport mechanism we will all see caps/pay-by-volume appear on our accounts. Most ISPs aren't going to take on the bandwidth of major servers (and BitTorrent protocol overhead) in addition to client traffic without infrastructure upgrades.

It'll make a good excuse to add sliding fees for upstream use. But maybe we'll get back to the point where we can download game demos and patches without "waiting in line" for an hour.

Re:Dubious

[stoanhart]

Just like to clarify that BitTorrent doesn't "downgrade" people. It's just that the concept on which BitTorrent functions is inhibited by the lack of full two-way communications. It's not to punish leechers, it's just the way it is.

Bittorrent For TV

[TheFlyingGoat]

Take a look at my journal for my idea on how BT could work for TV networks.

Partially OT, but some of the ideas would fit a movie distribution model as well.

My money is ready

[kwerle]

I'm ready to pay a dime/episode of The Daily Show. With commercials. I'll pay a quarter/episode without commercials. Sell me a torrent in a timely fashion.

I can get it illegally now, but I'd much rather pay for it and be able to get it timely, consistently, and in better quality than some of the rips seem to appear.

They are late to the game.

[zymano]

The amateur are producing short films already using broadband to distribute their films.

There's a Soviet Russia joke here...

[suitepotato]

...but I am too apathetic to look for it. What follows is no troll. I swear.

My first reaction to this and the article was, "what amount of crack is being smoked now and by whom?"

My second reaction was, "this is par for the opportunistic and predatory but too stupid to live course."

Once again, late to the party and like the worst newbie's granddad, going "ooohh, what's this I hear about this inter thing?" Anyone remember their take on the VCR for years and years? It was the money people reacting to the new dynamics of the entertainment market with the entrenchment of the VCR that led to the end of all crap straight to the first run cinemas theme of the 70s and beginning of the straight to video with those what were we thinking mistakes theme of the 80s on.

I think the experienced net-going public's desire to adopt a DRM-ified torrent system is about like their desire to see a musical version of Trainspotting starring Andy Dick. We know that DRM is going to be the first thought on their minds. I think we can also see some sort of iTunes-like pruveyor appearing and it being half-assed to start, broken repeatedly, the IP providers getting stern and filing lawsuits, and the system progressing to some sort of bastard offspring of Tivo and BitTorrent.

No thanks. They still don't get it? Indeed.

What do users get in return?

[Anonymous Coward]

So let me get this straight, the movie companies get to piggyback off of their customer's bandwidth to take a chunk out of their expenses? I can see the sense of community when its free stuff being distributed, but for DRM'd files and when you know someone is getting a profit, I'd think the sense of community that is normally associated with BitTorrent will vanish.

There has to be incentive for a person to use their internet connection to help out a publisher. Whether it be credit, cash, or free services, there has to be something there to make people want to seed.

Will anyone let torrents run long enough?

[Game Genie]

One of the biggest issues with BitTorrent is the leeches that don't leave their torrents uploading after they are done downloading. I would expect this to increase greatly if the files being downloaded are DRM'ed and paid for, because less people would feel a sense of community or otherwise see a reason not to leech. This problem could well be minimized by the software (perhaps integrate the downloader and the player, or put the downloader in a background daemon), and if it was done in a way that is not too intrusive on bandwidth it would be accepted by the mass majority of users, assuming they didn't know what was going on and didn't care (eg, not /. geeks). Nevertheless, considering most consumer broadband connections have shit for upstream bandwidth, it would be challenging to make the bandwidth hit unnoticeable. Can it be done? Sure. But it is going to require a company that has some real attention to detail and understands the importance of quality in software. Remember, this needs to be of at least of comparable quality to NetFlix to get the early adopters to reach critical mass, and NetFlix has the bandwidth of the USPS on their side.

Bittorrent is the way!!!!

[Barnizagaitas]

Yes, they finally realize that P2P is not only good lammers, it is also good for sharing good things.

Re:Music video legitimately released via bittorren

[DeadChobi]

The thing most people dont realise which is a contributing factor to this success is that a music video is basically an advertisement for a band. By distributing your ad to people who are intelligent enough to comprehend BT, and not the near-illiterate common denominator of MTV, you might actually succeed in reaching people who are not only jaded enough to know when something is bad, but jaded enough to realise that something is good.

(Disclaimer: Note that if you disagree with anything I just said, you're probably right. I'm really not one to argue. I'm more one to ramble.)

Oh, that and MTV just plain sucks. Those of us interested in something new/original frequently avoid MTV stuff, because most of it lacks originality. Hell, everything I hear on the radio is just a rehash of everything I heard a year ago on the same station. Different name, same sound.

From the No Duh department

[cryptochrome]

Yeah, but this one was totally predictable. Overloaded servers and bandwidth limitations have been THE obstacle to growth for internet media. BT and its ilk solve those problems nicely. But these would-be distributors going to have to convince the ISPs to give consumers synchronous bandwidth to really make this scheme work effectively.

From the I'll-Believe-It-When-I-See-It Department:

[jtosburn]

'I know personally for a fact that various members of the movie industry are really getting interested in how to use the Internet--even BitTorrent--as a distributed method for distributing content,' Cerf said.

I think he mis-heard those movie producers. What they said was that BitTorrent is a "disturbing method for distributing content."

You can't have a cake and eat it too

[__aaitqo8496]

You want to sue people over the use of peer-to-peer applications, but at the same time monopolize on it's popularity?

Until I can legally download & burn a movie cheaper than going to blockbuster and doing the same, forget it.

Re:Music video legitimately released via bittorren

[Elwood P Dowd]

I'll point out that the Decemberists have really excellent performance and songwriting on their side. Not just BitTorrent :)

Reality Check

[mokolabs]

As inevitable as IP-based film distribution is, Vint Cerf talking with TWO movie producers isn't news and doesn't herald the dawn of a new age.

If Slashdot worked like Fark, we'd file this under... OBVIOUS.

And they are still outraged

[Toba82]

when the movie ends up online before it's out in theatres. What gets me is that bitorrent does not encrypt traffic (AFAIK, correct me if I'm wrong) and someone at the ISP of *any* of the theatres could just sniff for HTTP requests that end in .torrent and download an extremely high definition file of the movie for free. Just tossing that out there...

The hard part

[overshoot]

will be getting the law changed so that they're the only ones who can legally use it.

On the one hand they're trying to convince the United States Supreme Court that the developers of a technology can be sued into oblivion if at any point the technology is mostly used for copyright infringement.

On the other hand, they want to use it themselves. That's going to take some tricky wording.

Anyone remember the Lazarus Long line about how no sane adult wants justice, but it's what we're willing to settle for?

I don't think so

[maxpublic]

Can't say I have any more faith in the MPAA waking up and smelling the coffee than I do the RIAA. If you've actually worked with the powerhouses in the industry you'll know that they value control far more than they do money, and despise everything internet-related precisely because it strips them of some of that control. This is an industry where execs regularly torpedo projects with huge promise and/or ratings just because someone working on the project has pissed them off. Money has very little to do with it so long as a certain minimal amount keeps rolling in (and sometimes not even then).

Don't look at this through rose-colored glasses. Execs in the movie and TV industries are some of the biggest egomaniacs alive. If anyone is looking to distribute movies/TV via BitTorrent it'll be some small house outside the mainstream that can't get their films into theaters. The big guys will never follow suit; they'll take the RIAA path and try to legislate/intimidate p2p into oblivion.

Max

Re:Music video legitimately released via bittorren

[garagekubrick]

Well we really thought it would be a good way to share a video that was made with their fans in mind. The band couldn't afford to host it. MTV2 botched the airing in ways I don't care to ennumerate. Their persistent logo is pretty big, by the way. So we figured hey their fans are smart, if we can convince them to use bittorrent the least we can do with this thing is let them share it amongst themselves. Why have them wait for an MTV2 airing to capture, encode, and distribute themselves. Give them the highest quality we can directly instead. We thought a few hundred people would do that. So far we've had a number of downloads equal to half the people who bought their last album. Here's a direct link to the torrent. If the video offends you, I apologize. And recommend you check out this as an alternative.

Listen closely, all of you

[gosand]

Is anyone concerned that MP/RIAA would want to know their "enemy" better in order to discover its weaknesses and close it down more effectively? I can picture the discussion with Mr Cerf, and the movie guy is nodding and taking notes furiously, saying, "yes, do go on". It's the same reason some men read Cosmo magazine- it's like getting behind the lines and into the mind of the adversary.

This applies to the ??AA and those men you mention who read Cosmo: You won't get anywhere until you stop treating those you are trying to understand as adversaries.

Re:Listen closely, all of you

[kyojin the clown]

Fine, I'll stop trying to understand and just go down the adversary path. it'll be easier in the long run.

*Throws Cosmo in the bin*

Does not mean anything

[randomwalker]

I hate to be critical, but movie producers are not movie distributors. In fact a movie producer can be anything from agent, script right holder, banker, to part of a star's entourage. Cerf talking to movie producers is like me talking to cows to judge what Mcdonalds is doing

The movie studios (the distributors) are well aware of bittorrent and the myriad of other distribution technologies that are available. The distributors do not generally distribute directly to consumers, but use middlemen (which include hotel VOD systems, cable, TV broadcasters, airlines, retail stores, rental services, etc). If someone implements a system using bittorrent which meets the security requirements they have, they would license content to it. Bittorrent would just be a component of the system.

Not really

[Wesley Felter]

The Internet does not support multicast, so it doesn't matter. Also, multicast has nothing to do with IPv6.

Re:Not really

[Wesley Felter]

Multicast creates per-group state in core Internet routers, which is a serious scalability problem because those routers have finite memory. Given that the IETF has been working on this for years, I don't see how Hollywood is going to fix it.

Multicast is part of IPv4 and IPv6. It works the same in both protocols. Thus using IPv6 does not have any effect on multicast. If you don't have multicast today, then you still won't have it after everyone switches to IPv6.

Using BT effectively...

[P2PDaemon]

The music industry could profit immensely from using BT as a distribution source. Say I want to buy and download a movie for $10. Now, if we're using Bit Torrent, and I upload the whole movie to 10 other people, the movie industry could institute a "payback" plan for saving their bw by using mine. They could credit me say $1 for each complete movie I upload back. That would be a HUGE incentive to not only buy what the industry is putting out, but also to be a part of it.

Re:Argh, my eyes.

[PakProtector]

Thank you, Clippy.

No, really. It's funny.

Please... not the downmod! ARRGG!

Shame on you, hollywood!

[lightspawn]

According to Andrew Lack, President of Sony Music, "P2P stands for piracy to pornography." Which P are you planning to use, MPAA?

Prodigem sells content via bit torrent

[lerhaupt]

Make money from Bit Torrent?... hmmm, Prodigem. Why slashdot hasn't picked up on our new ability to sell access to torrents baffles me.

BitTorrent = Discount

[iamghetto]

I have a problem with BitTorrent being used to distribute content that I'm paying for. While I agree that movies and television shows should be legally available for download, they people supplying the content should pay for bandwidth.

If I use BitTorrent, I'm using my own bandwidth to help them redistribute/resell the exact same content that I just paid for.

Because of this, any content distributed over torrents should be discounted accordingly.

I believe that torrents work right now because their content is recieved for free. There is a sentiment of community. You can only get a file because other people seeded it. So in kind, people continue to seed the files to return to favor. That's what makes it work.

If I'm paying $10 for a movie, I wouldn't count on me spending anytime seeding it. I've paid for it. I don't owe the community anything.

If that makes any sense... :)

Really GOOD Idea

[whig]

This is actually a fantastic opportunity for the movie industry, if they embrace it rather than trying to demonize the protocol. Remember, folks, Bittorrent is just a tool for content delivery, and the direct-to-home video market is huge (i.e., Netflix).

Bittorrent trackers can be configured to serve content only to authorized subscribers. Delivering high quality releases over the net from the source is something that would have a huge market potential, but would place nearly impossible bandwidth demands on the content server were it not for the distributed nature of the protocol.

I can also see this as being something that companies like HBO with their huge catalog of movies could make available online on-demand, just as they do over digital cable today.

Re:Bittorrent

[kyoko21]

Comparing FTP with Bittorrent is like comparing apples and oranges. And even that is even too modest to apply for your analysis of FTP and Bittorrent.

For starters, you cannot extrapolate that FTP is surperior to Bittorrent simply because you have experienced surperior transfer rates with FTP over bittorrent. You have to ask yourself, what kind of speeds would you get if the FTP site that you are transfering from were to be the seed a particular torrent, and that it was only seeding the file to a few clients.

Reversely, you also have to ask yourself what kind of performance you would get from each of those individual "ips" that you were connected with as peers when you were using bittorrent if they all ran FTP servers for you connect to?

Your arguments for claiming "bittorrent" not living up to the hype is not justified and poorly formed. Can I answer the questions that I posed? Not unless I do the exact same thing.

One thing can do is to perform a simple test of using clients such as Download Accelerator or GetRight, or Xi's NetworkConnect to purposely connect multiple times to a single URL but spread out the download. Observe the speed that you obtain by a single download stream vs the aggregate download streams of connecting multiple times to the same file. Most likely you would see that you obtained a much higher aggregate throughput when you hammered it in multiple streams.

Bittorrent is simliar in that it is attaching itself to multiple nodes in obtaining the single goal of a file. The problem what you may have experienced is perhaps the 'torrents' you are trying to acquire are not being seeded by sites that have a lot of through put and the clients that are part of that swarm are not very 'upload' friendly. Just because you see 150 peers that does not mean you have access to all 150 of those peers. Individually those peers can have different settings, and like most people, they probably tuend their bittorrent clients to not to occupy their entire upload stream and maybe with a maximum number of upload streams set to 2-4. With all these constraints in place, you cannot just plainly say that Bittorent sucks because if those 150 peers allowed for unlimited upload sreams with unlimited capacity to the best of their ability, I would safely say that you would much better performance than a single stream of a FTP.

Your argument for not setting the MTU or TCP windowing to optimize your other application to INCLUDE bittorrent is not justified. "Optimizing" in itself is to make compromises so that the available resources are utilized to the best of the abilities by those consume it. The fact that you don't want to include bittorrent in your suite of application is not optimizing at all. If you find a suitable MTU or TCP windowing setting that works for not just bittorrent but your "other" suite of application, that is truly optimizing. Simply ignoring it or even attacking the problem is not the best solution. Maybe the new settings will affect the other applications in some manner. But do you really need to optimize Gopher protocol? or telnet? if these were application protocols that somehow that took a hit? You don't know that, and I don't know that. Do you even know that FTP and SFTP would be affected?

Also, you claim that you can achieve speeds of 400KBps on your ftp download. This would mean that your ftp site has an upload capacity of at least 3.2768Mbps. With overhead, let's just say it has about 4Mbps. Last I checked, I have not seen many residential dsl or cable provider(s) that offer services that include a 4Mbps upload.

And no. I don't know what I am talking about because I don't have any certs. No CCNA, CCNP, or CCIE.

Anyone else have something to add to this? After all, I could be and probably wrong... :-( Though if someone would be willing to attack the aforementioned problem that would be great!

Re:We've also had luck with IMNTV

[garagekubrick]

My problem with this argument though is that content production prices will not approach zero. Or it shouldn't. You need a decent crew and if you ask me high end sourcing to really compete with the giant videos. Even a format like HDV is just not good enough in my opinion.

Half the budget on this video went to sourcing on film and the steps necessary in post production to produce a high end format ready for broadcast. The other half went on traditional expenses like costuming, food, location lockdown. Everyone worked for free. But we can't ask the same people to work for free on the next one.

The reason so many amazing videos came out of commissions from the UK in the 90s (all those Spike Jonze, Michel Gondry, and Chris Cunningham pieces or say all of Radiohead's videos) is due to the mid budget video - something we don't really have in the US anymore. Now it's either the $5 million budgeted video, or the $10k video.

The problem is in the low budget, indie music world that there isn't really a point to making a video; which I as someone who wants to get jobs making videos understands. Every video is a gamble in the hopes of making it to rotation on MTV. That's a fact.

But the push from MTV is dependent on its playlist and brand attitude. Currently MTV2 decided to change and become another whole network and focus on major label pop punk and hip hop. For the most part all other music gets shunted to one hour a week timeslots. The other push is that there's some weird unwritten rule that a music video must contain primarily performance footage.

Result being - creative stagnation. And the bands who could make really interesting videos not having enough money to go to town when they realize how limited their distribution options are.

I'm hoping more people pick up the bittorrent torch and run with it and it leads to a blossoming of creativity in music videos. Artists who don't have the tools of a major label should add this to their arsenal.

I'm not a Pirate!

[Nom du Keyboard]

I'm not a peer-to-peer file sharing pirate.

I'm a beta tester for the MPAA's 21st century digital distribution system.

Re:Music video legitimately released via bittorren

[d34thm0nk3y]

Does anyone know of a better player for this *.mp4 file? Quicktime player on windows is even worse than realplayer. I prefer MPC but can't find a codec.

Distribution to whom?

[FishinDave]

I suspect Cerf's movie producers were interested in BitTorrent distribution to theaters, not individuals.