Slashdot Mirror
BitTorrent Becomes Ever More Legit
lily_bt writes "BitTorrent just signed a deal with 4 entertainment distributors to add more than 1,600 titles to its video library. From 'SuperSize Me' to The Three Stooges to Bollywood films, BitTorrent wants to offer the most comprehensive service when it launches its pay service. The best part is that this content will be made available by subscription." From the article: "Once distrustful of peer-to-peer technologies, Hollywood studios appear more willing to partner with companies such as BitTorrent and video-sharing site Guba.com, which last month partnered with Warner Bros. to distribute movie titles. BitTorrent, widely used to both legally and illegally swap copies of copyright movies, has been aiming to turn its technology into a tool used for legal services."
The more legit BitTorrent makes itself look the better. As long as I can get quasi-legal fansubs I'm happy.
Haiku for you!
They are pulling a Napster! This time without being sued first...
...why should I suddenly trust them now?
Every step they've made so far has been in the worst possible faith. I fully expect this to be another step in the same vein. What's their motive this time? Will the distributed content be so crippled and overpriced as to ensure failure and attempt to strong-arm yet more draconian laws?
Until the RIAA and MPAA are disbanded, I won't be trusting either industry - and I'll be doing my level best to avoid buying their products, even if that means my not having any movies or music at all.
The best part is that this content will be made available by subscription.
Let me guess, it'll be in WMV format, you won't be allowed to burn it to DVD and if you terminate your subscription you'll lose access to any movies you've downloaded so far (Assuming, that is, that you're actually allowed to keep them for longer than 24 hours).
I thought bittorrent was the technology of filesharing where everyone sends parts of the whole file. Sure there is the tracking file that enables it, but isn't this essentially using everyone elses bandwidth for thier profit?
It just doesn't make sense to me why anyone would pay for this.
"Pay us a fee, you can get movies, but you have to share the bandwidth you've already paid for?"
... in Spain too ?
If these files which I can legally recieve over bittorrent are DRM'ed -or- require me to maintain my subscription to keep watching them, then fughetaboutit. I'm keeping my money, thanks.
No one has managed to place effectice restrictions on HTTP activities because the protocol is too noisy with legitimate activity. Might this now be the same in the future with BitTorrent?
Think of the Children; Sleep with your Sister
In my experiences, BitTorrent is horribly slow unless you open up inbound ports through your firewall to your workstation. This isn't feasible in a corporate environment and I would normally be fine with that since I'm not going to be downloading movies at work, but many people are starting to only offer BitTorrent links for legitimate downloads. The first time I came across it was the Mandriva Club last year.
2. How much is this gonna cost? Unless it's significantly cheaper than purchasing a DVD, I doubt it'll take the world by storm - there is a certain trust in the DVD format. No mention of prices in TFA - any clues?
3...
Meta will eat itself
Yet my campus network still blocks bittorrent.
Now all we need is to get the ISPs to stop blocking Bittorrent. That's the only thing I run that actually makes it worth getting high speed, and to get it to work, I not only have to change the port it runs on, I have to change it to a specific port that for some reason they don't check. I think that Bittorrent's biggest adversary will be ISPs who insist on blocking it, or make it a pain to configure in order to cut down on the users' "unlimited" bandwidth.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
Part of the P2P model is that we (the customer) do the majority of the distribution work. Will BitTorrent suitably compensate us for our work, say by giving us substantial savings over other methods of buying the films? Or will they try to get a free lunch out of us so to speak?
I a parallel would be if the local pizza company offered to sell you a pizza for half price, but only if you delivered a pizza to another customer whilst you're at it.
Don't take the above poster too seriously. He doesn't.
The best part is that this content will be made available by subscription.
s/best/worst
From 'SuperSize Me' to The Three Stooges to Bollywood films, BitTorrent wants to offer the most comprehensive service when it launches its pay service.
all of those and more are already available on bittorrent. Hell there is already HD Rips of most content available via BT.
How do they expect to compete with the illigit stuff? I can either download and play the illigit items on anything I own or pay for the content and only play it on the windows machine with the approved player?
no thanks. Offer it without DRM so I can play it on my archos, mythbox, and other items that are not approved or I am not buying.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
The article does a really bad job of emphasizing the difference between Bittorrent the download protocol/technology, and BitTorrent, the CA-based company.
It's kind of like what would happen if Yahoo! had named itself "HTTP" back in the early 90s.
What's basically happening here is that a company (BitTorrent) is marketing a service which (I think) uses the bittorrent protocol to share DRMed movies, as part of a subscription service.
From a technical standpoint, this has as much to do with the Pirate Bay's use of BT as Apple's iTunes does with AllOfMP3.com, since they both use HTTP. Which is to say, basically none.
However, from an economic/political standpoint, this could be a good thing depending on how you look at it. Because BitTorrent, Inc. is the 'public face' of the BT protocol, whatever it does reflects on the perception of bittorrrent generally. If it's perceived as being legitimate, then it dampens the kneejerk "bittorrent == piracy" reaction, even though the majority of the traffic using that protocol on the network at any given time may be illegitimate or pirated. This perception is important, since it may be what drives ISPs and others to filter, block, or ratelimit packets on their network. As in many aspects of life, what people perceive to be the truth is far more important than what's actually the case.
I would wager that at some point, as BitTorrent, Inc. tries to clean up its image, that it will probably try to keep other file-sharing systems from using it's name and trademark -- Azureus will have to be a "distributed peer-to-peer simultaneous transfer client" instead of a "Bittorrent client."
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
How do they plan on stopping people from copying the movies and placing them on other torrent sites?
So hopefully they mean what they say and they'll actually support more than just windows and ie soon.
Just checked out guba.com. In Firefox, they tell me that i have to be running IE, and have windows media 9 or higher, "Which support the Windows Media Digital Rights Management System as required by our premium content providers. We will add other DRM support as soon as it becomes available and approved by major premium content providers" CrapTastic!
Can I be honest and say I dont like the subscription model?
I can already get that quite nicely via NetFlix etc. I want to be able to pay 2 (maybe 5) bucks and download the movie NOW. I dont mind if I have watch it within a week or even within 24 hours before the DRM kicks in, but I dont want to have to pay when I dont use.
Movies on demand. Thats what we want.
"Trust me. This system is way cheaper."
Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
It already was legit. This move actually makes BT more close to the dark side of the industry.
This method of distributing large files which require a lot of bandwidth does an end run around the telcos who are trying to charge large sites extra money, without the need for specific "Net Neutrality" legislation.
If YouTube were able to distribute their video content (at least the most popular ones) via p2p, they wouldn't need such a large pipe if they're only seeding and running a tracker-like service. The p2p user base will share amongst themselves (which is more efficient anyway for the ISPs). If someone else on my own ISP's network has the video already, I don't need to stream it directly from YouTube or Google, when I can get most of it from my neighbor.
it's a blue bright blue Saturday hey hey
How can one make an independent documentary film if it costs $10,000 to license four seconds of copyrighted TV show that happened to be showing on the television set in one of the documentary subject's room? How can an independent band publish an album if it runs the risk of accidentally tripping over someone's copyrighted melody?
After reading everyone's comments I've come to the opinion that they're going to hit a big roadblock with this. The people most interested in this type of distribution model are the exact same people least interested in putting up with restrictive digital rights management, especially of the Microsoft variety.
:(. I, for example, would love to lay the DVD (and all physical distribution formats) to rest in favor of files downloaded over the internet (hint: I already have). It's cooler, it SHOULD be cheaper, files don't get scratched every time I touch them, and I plan to have a computer screen bigger than my TV screen anyway. But there's simply _NO_ way I'm going to pay money for something that requires a Microsoft product to work. I'd rather climb up a skyscraper, wrap one end of a chain of Windows 98 CDs around my neck, tie the other end to a lightning rod, and jump off. I'm also not going to put up with a proprietary DRM of any kind.
It's almost like these companies don't do any market research at all
If someone can develop and popularize an open source standard DRM format that has REASONABLE (or at least adjustable - so that I can choose to buy things with less restrictions) restrictions call me.
Haiku for you!
That's what the DMCA was originally intended for: to keep people from doing the Internet equivalent of "stealing" cable TV.
It's not "your content", as you do not own the copyright in the works. Even if it's an independent film and you're the director and/or producer, it's not "your content" because the MAFIAA reserves the right to take you to court over four seconds of someone whistling or four seconds of a TV being on in the background.
Isn't that like being "a little pregnant"? It is legit, completely. What you do with it may not be, but that's no different than a screwdriver - you can use it to build stuff, or you can use it to pry somebody's door open.
I'd like a P2P (preferably a BitTorrent) client that doesn't drop downloads into a "shared folder". I have no way of knowing if the copyright holder wants his file uploaded, I have no way of telling if it's The Station's Raul (legal) oor if some puke like Maddonna has made a song with the same name.
I know it's illegal to download w/o the copyright holder's permission in some countries, but in the USA we have the NOTA, which says you're in the clear if you don't DL more than $2,000 in a 6 month period.
If I download Britney's trash by mistake, I don't want to be prosecuted, dammit! If you don't want me downloading your song, it's probably so bad I'd never in a thousand years buy it. If it's good, I'm going to want at least a CD quality file of it and your other stuff. Talented artists WANT you to download (even if their copyright-owning lables don't). Most indies are self published; theirs is the stuff I want.
Come on, guys, do I have to write teh damned thing myself?
"BitTorrent Becomes Ever More Legit"
I hate this title. BitTorrent is a protocol and doesn't know what content is being transferred. BitTorrent is as "legit" as it will ever be. Did anyone ever claim HTTP was becoming more legit?
I think bittorent's deals can eventually help Net Neutrality. If big content providers are successful using bittorent to distribute their properties then they will start to cry foul when bittorent traffic is relegated to the slow speed tier. The content providers such as Warner have properties that the ISPs want (TV shows/on demand movies etc...) and thus they can push the ISPs to keep bittorent traffic untouched.
The more the big content providers find ways of distributing content directly to the consumer the more interested they will become in telling ISPs to stay out of the gatekeeper business.
I would wager that at some point, as BitTorrent, Inc. tries to clean up its image, that it will probably try to keep other file-sharing systems from using it's name and trademark
I'm not 100% sure of trademark law but I don't think you can take a word that is already in common usage and trademark it unless your trademark doesn't overlap with the existing usage of the word. In other words, you can't trademark the word 'Chair' if you are using it to sell chairs. If they want to trademark 'BitTorrent' it has to be in relation to a different product from the BitTorrent protocol.
It would have been OK if they had enforced the trademark from the start. It's too late now though. They will probably try it anyway in the hope that people will settle out of court rather than pay legal expenses.
I'll probably be modded down for this...
i can't wait to pay a subscription so that i can seed videos!
it's not like i use my computer for work or anything. i will spend all of my time downloading movies legally via legal bit torrent, then while i'm watching the video i can seed it! it is the perfect plan!
-- lol pwned
I know this isn't the point of the topic, but that interests me. I watch a movie a month! Maybe 2 because of rentals. Which one of us is out from the norm? Now I'm going to have to ask my coworkers this question. Are you including TV shows as movies?
So I assume a new movie comes out every few months. Now there is a significant set of existing movies so it is possible to watch more movies per month than the number of new movies that are made per month. But one a day seems impossible. Are there really that many movies out there that you won't exhaust them all in a few years?
I assume you spent at least 2 hours every day to movies. Is that right? How much time goes to TV?
I would bet that if this happens, the teclos selling us our internets pipes will say that since we're getting a product cheaper through their service, they should get a chunk of that savings. Behold, the bittorrent tax.
How does a p2p protocol partner with a movie company?
Sig withheld to protect the innocent.
There is a service out there called Bitmunk that already does this - and it compensates the artist, the distributor, the label and it lets you choose not to buy DRMed files. Prices are also a great deal cheaper than most of the online music stores out there.
Given that BitTorrent's number one usage is downloading pirated movies and music, this is a drop in the bucket. And it's not that Hollywood or the RIAA are distrustful of P2P in general, they're distrustful of people using P2P to send around media they own the copyright to.
Good first step, and I don't agree with the people complaining about DRM on the movies...in the world we live in, where people will take anything not nailed down, it's kind of a necessity.
By summer it was all gone...now shesmovedon. --
If I have three apples and three ideas, and give two apples and two ideas away,
Now I have one apple and three ideas. And someone else has two ideas.
If I really don't want people to see my ideas, I should not give it aways (or sell it).
We live in an age with the mechanisms to exhange information freely like no other time in history. This scares those that control the information. They would like to greatly limit the exhange of ideas, and lock information content. We are in danger of becoming the modern information dark age. Or perhaps we are in it now.
Historically information was first controlled and suppressed by the church (along with government).
Then in the 1500's information was controlled and suppressed by the printing monopoly (The Stationers). They held a 137 year monopoly.
Now information is controlled largely by large media companies with government connections. (Copyright now extended to 120 years).
The best part is that this content will be made available by subscription.
Best for who, exactly? Presumably the movie companies, not the customers. This way you get to keep on giving money for the subscription, and when you finally decide to stop, you have no products to show for it.
I for one will consider downloading albums and films legally just as soon as a method of selling them second hand legitimately appears. Until then, I'll stick to tangible formats which still give me that right.
a)
b)
c)
Consider this. Whatever is running on your computer, is 'owning your computer'. Hollywood understands now that the torrent protocol means that, by granting access to sexy media files, media producers can be using your resources in payment (i.e. 'occupying the attention of you/your computer'). Hollywood always has been, and always will be, interested primarily in Time Spent At Attention, because this is one step closer to Give Us Money.
What, you didn't think torrent was Spyware?
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
The fact that it's "legit" won't stop my ISP from capping my upstream at 128Kb (down from 2000Kb) for torrenting about 4 gigs in a month. You know, the whole part of the service agreement that says, "this service is for entertainment purposes only"
Well if hollywood feel ok about stealing my bandwidth for thier own profit it makes me feel better about stealing thier movies for mine.. Anybody wanna buy a fuzzy copy of spiderman?
God Be Gone
That can't be right...
I don't give a damn for a man that can only spell a word one way.
Mark Twain
Lets hope they are not paying attention. You just told them that you cannot function without buying their product. That means they can do anything they want, and you will still buy it. Given your statment about coding, I assume that you do this for a living? If so, you just told the RIAA that you cannot earn a living without their product. Why in the world would they sell their product for a fair price, and treat you with any respect if you cannot do without it?
You've put yourself in the position of a haroin addict, and told the only dealer in town, just how bad your addiction is. Don't take this as an insult, because you certainly have a right to buy what products you want, but it is people like you that makes sure consumers have absolutly no leverage in negotiating a fair deal. The RIAA will take 1 of you over 5 of me, because they can charge you 6 times as much as me.
Why do I see the terms and services stating something along the line of "you give studio X permission to view a list of files/transactions using bitTorrent" now allowing them to see not only what you got legally, but also illegally. This just seems like a ploy to get you to provide them evidence for the lawsuit against you.
The bittorrent developers have sold out! Now if I owned the code, that action would have been OK, but seeing as I don't, it's despicable. Of course the bittorrent developers could always cut me in for a part of the action and I would be open to changing my opinion.
BitTorrent currently has many great legal uses, but the drawbacks of bitTorrent are the need to upload, slow downloading when incomming requests are blocked by a firewall, and the 100s of connections even a single download might establish. Many OSS projects use bitTorrent to reduce the load on their own servers.
But what happens when money hungry companies turn to bitTorrent? They end up using you. Why should your network's performance degrade when your computer is establishing 100s of connections to download expensive content? Why should you have to put up with a slow download behind a firewall? There is absolutely no reason to force legal movie downloads on to p2p, they can afford to host this content on dedicated servers!
I fear the Y2038 bug
What format will the movies be in?
And will it work without my having to switch platforms?
Bittorrent currently functions with linux, and that's most of the reason I use it.
I truly hope that their service will let me watch those movies LEGALLY on linux.
Nothing else besides a true lockout of given platforms would piss me off more!
---- I am certain of only one thing : I know nothing else.
Did you even read the link? Would you please prove that it is possible to do what you suggest, that it is possible to write a song whose melody does not coincidentally match the hook of one of the millions of musical works controlled by BMI, ASCAP, and SESAC?
Yes. I haven't heard much if any independent music played on commercial FM radio stations in Fort Wayne, Indiana.
No, because the major record labels and the major music publishers likely have a licensing agreement in place. Such an agreement would lock out independent recording artists in the same way that widespread cross-licensing and pooling of patents among multinational corporations lock out hobbyists.
"Love Is a Wonderful Thing" by Michael Bolton was ruled to be based on an Isley Brothers song (Three Boys Music v. Michael Bolton). I've heard the two songs, and they're much more different than "He's So Fine" and "My Sweet Lord". All they share is the hook, which Bolton accidentally copied.
If I myself want to write songs, record them, and (ObTopic) distribute them using BitTorrent, what steps do you suggest that I take to exclude cryptomnesia in order not to get sued?
Then why have the labels been suing grandmas and 12-year-olds? Could they be doing it as an investment, in order to set legal precedents that will make it easier for them to go after the deeper pockets in subsequent lawsuits?
What steps did you take to prevent your band from copying exactly anything?
Courts have found having heard a song on the radio ten years ago to count as "you listen to something", the act of publishing itself to count as "attempt", and near-coincidence to count as "duplicate it".
Ice was sued and lost. Queen and Bowie are listed as co-writers on new phonorecords of the recording.