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."

Comments

cool

[spykemail]

The more legit BitTorrent makes itself look the better. As long as I can get quasi-legal fansubs I'm happy.

Re:cool

[tepples]

now it will probably be impossible to tell the difference in traffic from the legal and illegal ways of downloading

And the ISPs are going to cap both legal and illegal ways now. "If you want video, subscribe to our video on demand service, not BitTorrent."

Re:cool

[PapaZit]

This leads to an amusing possibility: the MPAA/RIAA suing ISPs for blocking BitTorrent.

Great, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

...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.

Subscription

[Spad]

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).

Re:Subscription

[beh]

What would interest me more is how they would put bittorrent to use with DRM?

If they want to make sure that only YOU can watch the movie, or - in case you burn it on DVD and give it away - track you down if you spread copies, they would need to make sure that you get YOUR personalised copy of it (either with a fixed end-of-validity: say, you order your copy at 4:38pm, and it times out 4:37 next day -- or imprinted with some signature so that they will know YOU copied the movie), how would that still work with a distributed protocol a la bittorrent?

I don't see how it could - client caching doesn't make any sense (because of time limits in viewing), and it doesn't make a sense downloading a single block for someone else, just so THEY can download quicker.

Or - they go and encrypt all movies exactly the same and give you a temporary key for the file to allow you to decrypt it for a short while -- but is there a format that would allow for changing keys? (WITHOUT the danger of someone finding a way to crack the thing without knowing a temporary key? In that case, ANYONE could download a movie and decrypt it permanently - couldn't they?)

Re:Subscription

[Kadin2048]

I'm interested in their answer to this as well.

This question came up the last time the idea of legitimate, DRM-ed P2P software was discussed, and I didn't see any answer.

The whole advantage of BT versus a direct transfer protocol is the client-to-client aspect, which can only work as long as each client wants the same file. This means that you can't encrypt every file with a per-user/per-file key, and have to rely on the client software to apply the DRM to the final file. (As I believe iTunes does -- or used to do, anyway; wasn't the whole point of pyMusique that it could save files without applying the DRM?)

I have no idea how the system actually works, but if I were going to design something like it, I'd say that you'd have to have files that were encrypted with a per-file global key (this theoretically limits their use to users of the service, rather than just everyone, at least until the files+key escape onto the net) and then encrypt the files as they're written to disk (including the temp files) with a per-download key which would be used to enforce the expiration and single-user nature of the files. The keys would have to be kept inside the application, or inside the Windows Media framework, and the system would depend fundamentally on the security of the client software and the its prevention of user access of the keystore.

Oh, and the peer-to-peer connections between various clients would have to be encrypted with randomly generated keys, so that a user couldn't just capture packets flowing into the machine and reconstruct the un-DRMed file that way. This handshaking could also be used to (attempt to) verify the integrity of the clients to each other, so that a user couldn't inject an untrustworthy client and get un-DRMed content -- although I think it's impossible to block this avenue completely in the long run. (This is the pyMusique approach, at least as I understand it: simulate a client and get the file as normal, but just don't apply the DRM as the 'real' client does. However a P2P based system is more vulnerable to this attack than a centralized, iTMS-like service, since you can't arbitrarily change the handshaking procedure whenever you want: older versions of the client will still be out there, talking to each other, unless you have some sort of remote killswitch or enforced auto-updates.)

That I know of, there are at least parts of the Windows Media DRM system which remain unhacked, including it's key-management functions for DRMed files; although I suspect this is not due to any fundamental features of the system but more because of its limited use right now (and easier ways to bypass it that don't involve breaking the DRM itself, i.e. Audio Hijack). In the long run, a system like this can only work with any kind of security with Treacherous Computing technology that restricts the user from ever accessing the keystore, and even then I'm not sure you can guarantee security that way.

Because what you're trying to do is give the user access to something and keep them from it at the same time, all DRM systems are a bit schizophrenic, and this is no exception.

How is bittorrent a business model?

[mobiux]

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?"

Re:How is bittorrent a business model?

[DieNadel]

Unless the businessmodel encompasses something like paying for your bandwidth.

I have broadband at home, but I spend most of my time working in the office. It would be nice to let bittorrent use my connection while I'm not using it and when I get home I'd be able to download, say, 3 films or something.

It reminds me of the old time mp3 FTP file sharing: if someone uploads 1MB, then this account would be able to download 10MB.

Anyway, I usually watch a movie a day. If the monthly subscription is cheaper than a cable, or DirectTV pay-per-view or even renting a movie each day, it would be fine by me to only "own" a movie for 24hs.

DRM?

[gentimjs]

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.

More noise to hide in?

[also-rr]

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?

Compensation?

[fuyu-no-neko]

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.

Re:Compensation?

[CastrTroy]

Pizza stores sometimes have this. There's usually "No Delivery charge", however, they also have "Walk in specials" where if you go and pick it up yourself, you save some money. If there's not distribution (delivery) charge, then the stuff downloaded off bittorrent should be much cheaper than what you can get the same product for at the movie store.

why?

[Lumpy]

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.

BitTorrent, Inc. versus "bittorrent"

[Kadin2048]

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."

Re:OMG

[GundamFan]

You know... I think Bittorrent never really wanted to be the illegal content distribution system of choice... at least on paper.

Misleading title

[spyrochaete]

"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?

Yes.

[jb.hl.com]

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.

stealing ideas

[Anonymous Coward]

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

[zoeblade]

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.

Lets hope they are not.

[Belial6]

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.