The Other Side of BitTorrent

ByteWoopy wrote to mention a Wired article giving more coverage to the upside of BitTorrent. From the article: "Film and television executives no doubt wish the increasingly popular BitTorrent peer-to-peer file-sharing system never saw the light of day. Thousands of consumers are using the software to download hundreds of movies and hours upon hours of television programming. But one industry's threat is another's opportunity. There's an upside to allowing viewers to transfer copyright material content over BitTorrent. As noted by Japanese entrepreneur Joi Ito, fans of the Japanese anime series Naruto regularly post translated episodes of the show to BitTorrent, which attracts more fans to the series. The relatively obscure program has spawned a global following in online forums, internet relay chat channels and fan sites."

Comments

Now thats the right kind of thinking..

[ufpdom]

I've been using BT for years to grab the latest and greatest anime from japan.. For once someone actually see's the good use for BT. Yeah I grab the TV Series.. I then later buy the dvds for the extra content.

Artist In Favour of P2P

[Elecore]

This reminds me of a bumper sticker I saw once that said "I'm a musician in favour of P2P". I think we need more people like this give stories. Afterall, if the ARTISTS (musicians, movie makers, whatever) come out and say they support online file sharing of this nature, then the MPAA and RIAA and such lose a lot of ground.

Re:Artist In Favour of P2P

[kmortelite]

Good start, but why not take it further?

We live in an age where recording labels can become largely irrelevant (at least for music). It doesn't cost that much to put together an album. The days of artists signing away the next 10 years of their music careers are over. Now, an artist can record an album, and sell it online, costing consumers much less than physical media. It's cutting out the middle-man.

Yes naysayers, there is still a market for CD's. The artist can choose to create physical albums if they want, but do musicians still need a massive recording label to do this? I'm not an musician, but with the equipment in my house I could put together a fairly decent album (provided I could sing).

We don't need massive, overbearing record labels any more. If musicians would wake up and realize this, the days of the **AA would be numbered.

Fans must pay eventually

[Anonymous Coward]

The quoted entrepreneur does expect you fans to buy the retail DVDs eventually. He wouldnt want those freely traded on bittorrent.

Nothing new

[Richie1984]

There are many 'other sides' to bit torrent, such as downloading patches, programs, and non-copyright material. The only whining we hear about bit torrent is when the **AA complain about users downloading their material, thus attacking their distribution methods. I'm sure they'd feel differently about bit torrent as a distribution tool if they embraced it. Sadly, they seem to be attacking it in the same way they attacked VHS, cds and other recording mediums.

The justification doesn't make it legal

[springbox]

Joi Ito's opinion: "fans of the Japanese anime series Naruto regularly post translated episodes of the show to BitTorrent, which attracts more fans to the series." I'm really tired of seeing this sort of thinking repeated over and over as if it were to suddenly make the act of sharing copyrighted materials legal. I won't disagree that in some cases piracy can be a good thing, but that still doesn't make it any less illegal no matter what spin you put on it.

Re:The justification doesn't make it legal

[FauxPasIII]

> I'm really tired of seeing this sort of thinking repeated over and over as
> if it were to suddenly make the act of sharing copyrighted materials legal.

Perhaps you've misunderstood. I govern my actions by what I consider to be
_moral_, not legal. Often those two classes overlap, but in many cases they
don't. I suspect this is the motive behind the arguments you're seeing.

No kidding about Naruto

[Paradox]

Typically, anime is only distributed via torrent when there is no american company planning to sell it. This policy is meant to help smooth frictions between american publishers and file sharers. It's hard to argue that money is lost when americans download episodes of an anime that may never even be shown anywhere but Japan, and if no money is lost then a lawsuit is rather pointless.

The day that Naruto got licensed for US distribution, the fanbase seemed to go completely crazy. No one wanted to stop watching. Several groups decided to take their effort "underground" (by which I mean not listed on popular anime tracker sites, only from IRC and obscure group webpages).

If anything, bittorrent is good for series like Naruto. Distribution companies get a free, zero-effort focus group for nearly every anime that comes out. By watching anime tracker stats, it's easy to see which series are a crazy success and which are bombs. This is also much more reliable than watching screening attendance at conventions (which tend to vary wildly by time and location).

It just goes to show that just because you can excercise your copyrights, it doesn't always mean you should. I seriously doubt an anime like Gantz (or even Midori No Hibi, although I think people would argue with me about that) would have ever seen american distribution without a lot of fan support from subbers and the thousands of people who download unreleased anime.

Now, take that further...

[DrEldarion]

You need to take the logic one step further.

1) Series is not available outside of Japan.
2) Internet and fansubbing make series available outside of Japan.
3) Fansubs build series' popularity.
4) Publishers see demand and release series worldwide, seeing huge amounts of sale from fans they never would have had before.
5) Profit.

This works out extremely well for the developer, who doesn't need to spend money advertising, and gets a large amount of revenue they wouldn't have seen before.

On the flipside, maybe this is another reason the RIAA/MPAA are afraid of P2P and the internet in general - it allows content from other parts of the world (that they do not necessarily control) to come over here and become popular.

Re:Now, take that further...

[Animaether]

6) Try to sell to international TV networks
7) Notice they're not buying as much as you'd like to see because their target audience appears to be downloading the thing anyway
8) Try to sell the DVDs
9) Notice they're not selling as well as you'd like to see because the target audience appears to be downloading the thing anyway
10) Still profit. But not as much as you potentially could at this point.
11) Apply RIAA/MPAA math as applicable and complain about the hand that fed you in 'the early days'

In this case, it's a blade that cuts both ways.

It's all good and well when the copyright owner -allows- it. It's another when they don't.

Re:Now, take that further...

[zalas]

1) Series is not available outside of Japan.
2) Internet and fansubbing make series available outside of Japan.
3) Fansubs build series' popularity.
4) Publishers see demand and release series worldwide, seeing huge amounts of sale from fans they never would have had before.
5) Profit.

This used to be true, until now, when more and more American companies start negotiating series with Japanese licensors before the show even starts airing... Some shows, such as Tenjho Tenge were created with money paid up front by American companies. Sure, the very obscure show will still get some benefit from BitTorrent, but a good chunk of shows, the super popular ones that fansubbers sub, tend to be noticed by companies before airing and perhaps are already in license negotiations once airing starts. And face it, I'm sure most of the people downloading Naruto wouldn't even think of buying the DVDs. I mean, just look at all the complaints on the forums when the Naruto license was announced, when their free flow of episodes was in danger of getting shut down.

Re:Now, take that further...

[diamondsw]

And face it, I'm sure most of the people downloading Naruto wouldn't even think of buying the DVDs.

Actually, my experience has been that the vast majority of people buy the DVD's. The quality difference is staggering (DVD really shines with anime) and the extras are usually quite good. I buy very little anime (I have friends who are MUCH more into that I am), but when I see a really good series via BitTorrent, I'll buy it (Haibane Renmei, Azumanga Daioh, etc). Otherwise, I'll watch it once and delete it, which to me is just like renting (except it's VERY hard to find good places to rent anime...).

I mean, just look at all the complaints on the forums when the Naruto license was announced, when their free flow of episodes was in danger of getting shut down.

That has nothing to do with fans being cheap, it has to do with being stuck at episode #[something damn high] and the having to wait for the official release to catch up - that can take months or more likely years. So, they're stuck either doing the ethical thing and waiting forever, or finding ways to go underground.

Re:Upside of BitTorrent

[lasmith05]

I agree with this to a certain extent. Provide stuff like episodes we don't get here in the states, or show conferences, or shows that we missed, or cable programming for those who don't have cable and I think there is a viable market. I remember wanting to see Battlestar Galactica so bad I scoured the internet for torrents.

It's all about control of distribution channels...

[RenegadeTempest]

What people sometimes fail to grasp is that the entertainment industry (RIAA & MPAA) aren't really concerned about piracy. They will bitch and moan about decreasing revenue but those are a drop in the bucket. Most revenue lost due to piracy wasn't real revenue anyways. The people infringing on the copyright would have never bought the product in the first place.

What the RIAA and MPAA are most afraid of is that there is now a free distribution mechanism for artists. they don't need someone to label and distribute their art, they can just push up on a bit torrent. They can by-pass the leeches that only exist to take more from the talented people producing great work. They also can't control what we listen to and what we watch. they make their money by pumping out the same crap month after month and taking a small percentage from the artists.

If they lose control of the mechanism for distributing art, then they can kiss their racket goodbye.

Wooly Thinking on Content

[Maestro4k]

"People assume that because it's open to everyone there'll be this mass movement of people making quality content that everyone can access, and I don't think that's true." I don't think this is what anyone's assuming. The reality is that whatever content is out there that has an audience (or even just someone who wants to promote it) will end up showing up on Torrents. This is already happening, episodes of TV shows go up shortly after airing for instance.

So no we don't assume that quality content will be made just to put on BitTorrent, but was can already safely say that all quality content will end up there, whether it's legal or not. Smart content producers will try to tap into this, it's an enourmous audience after all. I expect we'll see more of the same from the MPAA though, instead of trying to adapt to the new technology they'll just continue to sue everyone instead. What a waste of money.

This is actually what scares them...

[Shadow Wrought]

The relatively obscure program has spawned a global following in online forums, internet relay chat channels and fan sites.

Considering how much the big conglomerates (TV and Movies) spend to secure your attention, a show capturing everyone's attention through somehting like BitTorrent scares the bejeebers ought of them. It means that they can't just slap something together and, "since its the only thing on..." expect to keep an audience. It means that in order to be successful they are going to have to take risks and provide a high level of quality in what they do. I think the pirating card they keep playing is more mcguffin (sp?) than anything. What they really want to avoid is having to be creative, innovative, and responsible to their audience.

Yeah Right

[Vandil X]

I'm not sure what universe you live in, but the vast majority of those pirating materials on the Internet aren't doing so because of the lack of a well-thought-out legal distribution model.

The reason is that these people believe/expect that everything on the Internet is free.

These are many of the same people that believe people are born with the right to pirate their copy of Windows because Microsoft has tons of money.

Re:Yeah Right

[GMFTatsujin]

I'd back you up here, but I don't subscribe to Slashdot, I adblock all the flash on the page, and don't allow popups.

Funny thing: once upon a time, everything on the Internet WAS free. Pay for access, sure, but once the pipe was open there was a whole world of academics, collaborators, hobbyists, and so on whose whole reason for being on the Internet was to share. Share! Amazing!

Commerical interests have no "this isn't how it should be" claim to stake. They're the Jonnys-come-lately online, and they *still* have to learn how to adjust.

Re:Yeah Right

[orasio]

These are many of the same people that believe people are born with the right to pirate their copy of Windows because Microsoft has tons of money.

I, myself, think Microsoft, even having tons of money, doesn't have the right of having me copy (not pirate, pirates have sailing ship and I don't) MSWindows, without paying me in exchange. I am very happy with slackware, thank you very much.

Re:Yeah Right

[AKAImBatman]

I'm not sure what universe you live in, but the vast majority of those pirating materials on the Internet aren't doing so because of the lack of a well-thought-out legal distribution model.

Try again. The lack of a well-thought-out legal distribution model is EXACTLY the reason for rampant piracy. What we have here is the same sort of loophole that brought Napster into existence. The public wants their entertainment media combined with the convenience of the Internet. In the case of Napster, the RIAA tried to ignore the market pressures and stiffle the distribution of MP3s. Yet without realizing it, they only managed to add to an economic vacuum. As you probably know, nature abhors a vacuum.

As a result, every attempt by the RIAA to crush the MP3 craze only served to increase it. Before they knew it, MP3 players started popping up and an entire market grew around something was supposed to be illegal. This prompted Steve Jobs to call the music executives a bunch of idiots, and then go on to figure out a music distribution model for them. Today, iTunes is a highly successful product that has spawned a large number of competitors. Between them, they have caused people to pay for music that they would have otherwise pirated.

The same thing is now happening to the Television industry. Between TIVOs and BitTorrent, the world is demanding digital, on-demand television. The TV industry has been somewhat supportive with things like TV on DVD releases and Cable on-demand(which has probably helped a lot), but can't seem to let go of its traditional content delivery models. This is slowly causing a vacuum which BitTorrent is quickly filling.

Which is really too bad. An Internet distribution model could allow TV producers to completely break free of the rigors of program scheuduling, annual show seasons, required program order sizes, and primetime competition. Instead, shows would compete directly on how attractive they are to the market.

As for movies, I think a vacuum is developing, but it's not a real problem yet. People want Internet content delivery, but are still happy with it being exclusively released to the Theater first. Most of what's going on right now is true piracy that the industry has always had to deal with. As a result, it doesn't currently impact their numbers by much as long as they keep it in check. But in the near future, I predict that people are going to feel much more strongly about having on-demand access to old movie libraries (where old is any movie that has been out for more than a year to a year and a half).

Re:Yeah Right

[mc900ftjesus]

Not many people expect much for free. We just don't like being bled dry by the entertainment industry.

Convince me that a CD should $15. I believe they were right about $15 when CDs first came out. If prices don't change for over 10 years, the record companies make tons of money and the artists get a small piece of that action, I say that's crap. I will say that artists are really stupid if they think they can't sell music off of a website on their own.

Movies? No actor deserves $20M for a movie. If it costs too much to pay to make a movie, hire some new actors that don't ask for ridiculous amounts of money and pass that down to the consumer. Look at reality TV, except replace the horribly fake people with actual actors. Of course that savings would never make it to the consumers, it would make it into an executive's pocket.

The quality of movies and music has also fallen by the wayside. Why should corporate bands music cost the same as real music? Or crappy sequels to movies? With most industries you get what you pay for, not entertainment, it's more of a gamble. Hell, you can't even return CDs or DVDs when you find out they suck unless you pay to rent them first, which only makes them more expensive. You can't win.

So, I would like to stop people from calling downloaded movies and music "stealing." This is the age of the euphemism, I'm calling it "reparations" from now on. Isn't that what you call being paid back for years for crappy treatment?

Re:Yeah Right

[bonehead]

It's the TV on demand that's the problem.

Sure, they want you to have your eyeballs on their ads, but that's not quite enough. They also try very hard to keep your eyeballs OFF of the competition's ads. The only real mechanism they have for accomplishing this is through scheduling, like "super sizing" Friends to take eyeballs away from Survivor.

TV on demand takes that ability away from them. (Yes, they're losing it anyway, but you can bet they'll hang on as long as they can.)

Re:Yeah Right

[AKAImBatman]

You give the average person too much credit.

I don't give anyone credit for anything other than that they will do what is most convenient. Consumers would happily have used an iTunes service back when MP3s first appeared. At the time I said that the music industry needs to get this done or they won't be able to stop MP3s. Well, guess what? They couldn't stop MP3s.

An economic vacuum has absolutely nothing to do with the intelligence of the individuals. It has everything to do with the desires of the mob. The mob wanted MP3s. Back when Napster came out, they were rare as gold. I have few doubts that people would have plunked down small amounts of money for each song (possibly even under a Napster model). But the music industry didn't want to give up their precious CD price hikes, and as a result they got burned. There's no two ways about it.

iTunes survives on a thin number of subscribers compared to the number of people who still warez their music, simply because iTunes costs money.

Got any figures? If there was any good statistical models for Internet piracy, I'm willing to bet that they'd show a marked decrease in the number of songs pirated. Or, at the very least, the growth curve flattening. Meanwhile, iTunes is putting real money in the pockets of music studios. Real money that they wouldn't otherwise have.

Re:I don't get it...

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Why don't *they* (MPAA ETC) use BT to their advantage and get on the bandwagon. Their day of controlling content is over, no matter how harsh they make the laws.

Because they don't actually make the movies, they just market and distribute them. Bitttorrent is a functional, if imperfect, replacement for half of what they do and a threat to their dominance of the other half. All they do is control content, without that and their marketing ability movie producers would just cut them out entirely.

Re:Back in the old days of console gaming...

[forand]

Quote:

That's not how it's supposed to work.

How can you assert this? The free market is just that free to do as it pleases. Right now the RIAA/MPAA are using their money to make the market less free; attempting to force hardware providers to include hardware that the customer do not want/need, increasing the copyright time far past anyone should reasonably expect to profit from a single work, and those are just two. The free market it reacting to this. The RIAA/MPAA have been investing more resources into stifling development than producing quality content. The consumer realizes that there is no reason to pay anyone for the crap that is currently out there if those making it are using that money to limit their own rights. Now this may be giving the average consumer far too much credit but in the end it is true. The market didn't like the solution provided by the RIAA/MPAA so it found another method. Who are you to say what is "supposed" to be?

Re:Upside of BitTorrent

[Bimo_Dude]

As long as there are free episodes to download, charging won't work.

While I agree with the rest of your post, I (IMHO) disagree with the above portion.
Just look at Apple's success with iTunes as for example.

Aside from those who are either too poor or too unethical to pay, I think that most people do/will for quality content, and there are plenty of the "out there". I, for one, would be really happy to pay for some good tv shows and movies, provided that the price is reasonable, and the A/V quuality is good.

No its not

[Anonymous Coward]

High speed internets, continuous connectivity, digital content.

There's no way to keep that content off the net. Think of it this way. When the automobile came out, the buggy manufacturers didn't *ask* for this new appliance. It simply was reality.

They could either ask for legislation to make automobile use difficult or make automobiles themselves.

Life changes. The environment changes. And you've got to adapt. New laws will hold back progress for only a little while. Its like a wave from the ocean. There is no way to resist. You can only deal with the reality of it.